





















































































































































r* 


























Short Studies 

of 

Familiar Bible Texts, 


Mistranslated, Misinterpreted, 
and Misquoted, 


/ 


By Blackford Condit, D. D. 


Author of “ History of English Bible. ’* 


“ IJnderstandest thou what thou reddest?”—Acts viii:JO. 


Fleming H. Revell Company, 

: : New York : : Toronto 

mdcccxcviii. 


Chicago 


SECOND COPY, 




« 


50432 

Copyrighted 1898 , by Fleming H. Revell Company. 



TSVO 


' ^nco RcGtlV'ED. 


0 ^ 




Xo 


SSife 

SBfjoSe aib t)aS been inbaluaMe to 
me $n tf)e prosecution of tfyeSe ©tubieS 
Xf)iS boof tS gratefully 

$ebicateb. 




CORRIGENDA. 


Page i oi. 
Page 102, 
Page IOS, 
Page hi, 
Page ijo, 


IS lines from, top, for agressive read aggressive. 

5 lines from top, for pbraxe read phrase. 

6 lines from top, for men read ma?i. 

8 lines from top, for thus read this, 
g lines from top, for man read many. 




















\ 






Introduction. 


Gentle Reader: —In opening to you the door of 
this little volume, it is taken for granted that you are 
a friend of the Sacred Scriptures. Though possibly 
not among the offenders, yet you may be surprised at 
the seriousness of some of the offenses; especially, 
since they are traceable not to enemies, but to the 
friends of the Bible. Chief among these are the 
translators. The conscientious faithfulness of these, 
by way of eminence, the first among the friends of 
the Bible cannot be called in question, and yet every 
error in translation, however unintentional, is still 
an error, and, so far, is misleading. For this reason, 
Wycliffe with the aid of others, revised his first trans¬ 
lation. Tyndale, eight years after the publication of 
his translation of the New Testament, issued a second 
edition carefully revised. This was done in 1534. 
Revision, for the sake of correcting errors, has been 
the watchword all along the line of English versions. 
In acknowledging the good icork of those who had 
gone before them, the translators of the Authorized 
version, say in their address to the Reader; “Wee 
neuer thought . . . that we should neede to make 

a new Translation . . . but to make a good one 

better, or out of many good ones, one principall good 
one.” The preface of the Revised version says; 
“ Our task was revision not retranslation.” These 


6 


INTRODUCTION 


faithful friends of the Bible becoming aware of their 
own errors, or those of others, were diligent in seek¬ 
ing to remedy the wrong. 

Next to the translators come the interpreters of 
the Scriptures. Historically they may be traced to 
the Christian fathers, and then to the Jewish rabbis. 
In their zeal for spiritualizing, they changed the 
plain statements of the Bible into allegories, and 
brought forth supposed hidden meanings, where no 
such meanings were intended. Unintentionally they 
thus robbed the Scriptures of their plain intent. All 
this, however, is largely a matter of the past. The 
crying evils of popular misinterpretations in our own 
day, are many. Often a passage is misunderstood 
because of an obsolete word. Then there is the mis¬ 
chievous habit of detaching a text from its con¬ 
nection, and giving it a meaning which the context 
will not justify. Another fruitful source, is, when by 
reading the New Testament into the Old Testament, 
the Suffering Savior is found where prophetically the 
Triumphant Redeemer is intended. (See especially 
pp. 83—86.) Still another, equally dishonoring to the 
Scriptures, is, where passages setting forth spiritual 
blessings to be realized in this world, are made to 
refer to the world to come. (See pp. 23,24,105,106.) 
The term misinterpretation, therefore, is limited in 
these pages to these popular forms, which are wide¬ 
spread in their evil effects both to the individual 
reader and to the Bible as well. 

But in no way, perhaps, is the Bible so dishonored 


INTRODUCTION 


7 


by its friends, as by the literal misquoting of its 
language. This evil is not of modern origin. These 
sayings, or would be quotations, are traditional, and 
come down to us from the obscurity of the past. 
They represent no halting words with uncertain 
sounds, but are firm in their step, and assume the 
authority of Scripture itself. Although originating 
in obscurity, they give evidence of springing from 
the most sacred associations. Curious enough, the 
literal correctness maintained in the quoting of these 
sayings proves them to be ingrained in the heart as 
well as in the memory. By their sacred use the abuse 
of the Scriptures becomes the more grievous, in that 
the Bible suffers the loss of the texts which these 
misquotations virtually displace. 

In the first and second parts of these “ Studies ” 
there were no lack of helpers; and in each case proper 
recognition has been made. The third part, however, 
is comparatively a new field, or rather an old field 
but little worked. It grows cheat, in the midst of 
the wheat. And this cheat is garnered and used as 
pure wheat. Printed matter in respect to these mis¬ 
quotations was simply out of the question. Resort., 
therefore, was had to correspondence with several 
friends, and through their kindness and valuable aid 
my list of abused texts was materially increased. 

And now the reader is left to himself. In conning 
these pages, doubtless, he not only will be surprised, 
but in some instances, highly indignant. To be un¬ 
ceremoniously deprived of a familiar text, especially 


8 


INTRODUCTION 


when it is accepted in a deep religious sense, and 
treasured up in the heart as sacred, is by no means 
pleasant. But in the wise words of an anonymous 
writer; “ If they should feel unreconciled ... it 
would be proper to remind them that no other sense 
of any passage of Scripture can be more precious, 
or more edifying than the true one.” 

Strange to say a misquotation of the Bible may 
become, by familiar and long use, as sacred as the 
true reading. A good friend whose attention was 
called to the common misquotation of Micah iv: 4. 
(See page 141.) honestly confessed, that though 
the quotation was wrong, yet it was hard to give it 
up. The word “ molest ” seemed so comforting. 

In the results reached, in respect to some of the 
passages in parts first and second, there may be room 
for honest differences of opinion. The wisest have 
differed and doubtless will continue to do so. All 
that is claimed for these “ Short Studies,” in the few 
selected examples brought forward, is, a diligent and 
honest endeavor to set forth the true meaning and 
intent of each text considered. 

Terre Haute , Ind., Oct. 1897, 


The Author. 


Contents. 

Part I. 

Familiar Bible Texts Misunderstood on account of 

being Mistranslated. 11 

Part II. 

Familiar Bible Texts Misused on account of being 

Misinterpreted.69 

Part III. 

Familiar Bible Texts Abused on account of being 

Misquoted.117 


\ 















Part I. 

Mistranslations. 




“Which thing only moved me to translate the New 
Testament. Because I had perceived by experience, how that 
it was impossible to establish the lay people in any truth, except 
the scripture were plainly laid before their eyes in their mother 
tongue.’* —William Tyndale. 


Part I 


Familiar Bible Texts Misunderstood on 
account of being Mistranslated. 

Exodus vi:2. And God spake unto Moses, and 
said unto him, I am the Lord. 

The word Lord, here, represents the proper 
name Jehovah. It is a substitution rather than a 
translation. In the Septuagint it is rendered by 
Kurios, and in the Vulgate by Do minus. These 
are followed by the Authorized version as in our text. 
With but few exceptions it is so treated throughout 
the Authorized version. Unfortunately the Revised 
version 1885 though it adds more exceptions fol¬ 
lows in the wake of its predecessors. The reason 
for this as given by the revisers in their preface, is, 
long established usage. It is comforting to know 
that the American committee would have had it 
otherwise, and would have inserted the word Jeho¬ 
vah wherever it occurred in the Hebrew text. (See 
R. V., App.) 

It is true that the name Jehovah was to the 
Jews the “ ineffable name.” Gesenius in his Heh. 
Lex., says; “The later Hebrews, for several centuries 
before the Christian era, either misled by a false in¬ 
terpretation of certain laws (Ex. xx:7. Lev. xxiv:16), 
or following out some ancient superstition, regarded 
13 


14 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


this name as too sacred to be uttered, as the ineffable 
name which they scrupled even to pronounce.” 
Josephus in his Jewish Antiquities , referring to Ex. 
iii: 13-15, says; “Whereupon God declared to him 
(Moses) His holy name, which had never been dis¬ 
covered to men before; concerning which it is not 
lawful for me to say any more.” To the Jews it was 
“ the name of the four letters,” the “ unpronounceable 
name.” 

And yet Jehovah is God’s memorial name. 
The latter clause of Ex. iii: 15, reads; This is my 
name forever, and this is my memorial unto all gen¬ 
erations. It was this name that Moses was to give 
to the children of Israel, as proof of his commission 
to bring them forth out of Egypt. God was known 
to the patriarchs Ex. vi: 3, as God Almighty, the All 
sufficient one, able to create, to uphold, and to estab¬ 
lish covenants with far-reaching promises; but hence¬ 
forth He is to be known as the I AM, the Self-Exist¬ 
ent and Omnipresent one, the Deliverer of His people. 

There are German, also English and American 
scholars, who are persuaded that this memorial name 
should be spelled Yaveh, in that, it is nearer the 
Hebrew than Jehovah. But as yet, this is a question 
for the critical Biblical scholar; and not until a rea¬ 
sonable ground of agreement is reached, and the facts 
become familiar, can it be made a matter of popular 
interest. 

This memorial name in whatever way it may be 
spelled, ought to be cherished by the Jews in all 


MI8TRANSLA TED 


15 


their generations, on account of its essential charac¬ 
teristics. Some one has said; that “ Jehovah is to the 
Old Testament, what Christ is to the New Testa¬ 
ment.” Not only so, but this Name is God’s me¬ 
morial, among the true Israel in all ages of the 
world. Besides, if in a limited degree we may read 
aright the prophecy contained in Rev. xix: 11-16, it is 
this JEHOVAH of the Old, that becomes the KING 
OF KINGS, and LORD OF LORDS, of the New 
Testament. (See pp. 85, 86.) 

Unlike the Jews who read the name Jehovah out 
of the text of their Bibles, we as Christians, are com¬ 
pelled with but few exceptions, to read it into the 
the text of our Bibles, by means of the word Lord. 
Far-better would it have been if the revisers of 1885 
had heeded the suggestion of the American committee 
and inserted this ever'tO'be'rememberedmame Je¬ 
hovah wherever it occurred in the Hebrew text. 

Lev. xviii: 18. Neither shctlt thou take a wife to her 
sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, beside the 
the other in her life time. 

More than ordinary interest attaches itself to this 
text, in that it has been the battle ground of strife in 
regard to the vexed question of the marriage with a 
deceased wife’s sister. There is no doubt, but that, by 
the obscurity of its language, the text admits of 
various interpretations. Some have thought that it 
even contains a prohibition of polygamy itself. This 
they would make to appear by adopting the words 


16 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


of the margin “ one wife to another ,” instead of a 
wife to her sister. On critical grounds, however, the 
reading of the text is shown to be preferable to that of 
the margin. But the main contention confines itself 
to the above question. Those who claim that such 
marriages are forbidden, base it first, upon their in¬ 
terpretation of the text; second, upon the affinities 
naturally created by marriage; and third, upon Jew¬ 
ish law. Those who disclaim such prohibition, base 
their judgment first, upon the text itself; second, 
on the stout denial that Jewish laws have any author¬ 
ity over Christians; third, that practically they find 
no ground for the charge of immorality in such 
marriages. From the obscurity of the text it is not 
surprising that there should be diversity of views 
and no little perplexity, especially in the minds of 
unlearned readers. Such readers will find invaluable 
and authoritative help in rendering of the Revised 
version, which reads; And thou shalt not take a wom¬ 
an to her sister , to be a rival to her, to uncover her 
nakedness , beside the other in her life time. 

The plain scope of the passage, as here translated, 
is, that while it recognizes polygamy, under which 
practically bitter rivalries existed, yet it institutes 
a wise and beneficent provision by which two sisters 
should not at the same time become the wives of one 
man. Besides in the words, in her life time, there is 
implied that in case of death, there would be no 
hindrance to such marriage. 

The passage thus understood affords no ground for 


MISTRANSLATED 


17 


civil enactments against such marriages; neither any 
excuse for binding the consciences of Christians. I 
here would re^quote the significant words Dr. A. 
Roberts, a member of the British Committee on 
Revision. He was fully convinced that the passage 
sanctioned such marriages. He says: “It is simply 
a matter of regret and reproach, that English law 
has not yet acknowledged the validity of the marriages 
in question, while so much suffering and sorrow have 
followed in consequence.” ( See my Hist. Eng. Bib. 2d. 
ed. note, p. 478.) Says Michaelis, in his Commentaries 
on the Laics of Moses; “ What Moses prohibited 
was merely simultaneous polygamy with two sisters; 
that sort of marriage in which Jacob lived when he 
married Rachel, as well as her sister Leah. The 
reason of this prohibition it is not difficult to 
discover. Sisters, in whom nature has implanted a 
principle of the strongest affection, are not to be 
made enemies to each other by polygamy.” In a 
note, he adds; “ The reason why marriage with a de¬ 
ceased wife’s sister has been so generally understood 
to be forbidden, is, that Moses has prohibited mar¬ 
riage with a brother’s widow; and expositors, in order 
to have it in their power to draw inferences from 
other prohibitions have maintained, that he not only 
prohibits the particular marriages specified in his 
law, but also those equally near in point of relation¬ 
ship.” (See vol. II, p. 113, London, 1814.) 

Judges xv:19. But God clave an hollow place 


18 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


that was in the jaiv, and there came water thereout; 
and when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he 
revived: wherefore he called the name thereof En-hak- 
kore, which is in Lehi unto this day. 

The words, in the jaw, of the first clause of this 
verse, may not be a mistranslation, but their intro¬ 
duction in this connection, to say the least, is unfor¬ 
tunate. In the account of the victory wrought by 
Samson with the jawbone of an ass, the efficiency of 
the weapon is so present to the imagination, that 
when it is said, God clave a hollow place that was in 
the jaw, almost every reader takes for granted that 
the “jawbone of an ass” is meant. But the word is 
the same as that which is translated Lehi, in the last 
clause. It should have been so rendered here, thus 
avoiding all ambiguity. True the correct word 
“Lehi” finds a place in the margin, yet few readers 
stop to correct the text by renderings of the margin, 
which are supposed to be less desirable. 

The Revised version translates; But God clave the 
hollow place thcd is in Lehi, and there came water 
thereout; . . . wherefore the name thereof icas 

called En-'hokkorc, which is in Lehi unto this day. 
It should be noted that the revisers place the words, 
“ the jawbone,” in the margin. By so doing they in¬ 
dicate that this rendering is permissible. The expla¬ 
nation is that the words “Lehi” and “ the jaw,” are 
different names for the same district of country. 
(See my Hist. Eng. Bible, 2nd ed. p. 478.) This 
possible interchangeable use of the words relieves 


MISTRANSLATED 


19 


tlie translators of the Authorized version; yet it is 
clear that they ought to have used the same word in 
both instances. 

We may apologize, as above, for our translators; 
but what shall be said of the rendering of the Vul¬ 
gate, which reads; Aperuit itaque Dominus molarem 
dentem in maxilla asini et egressae sunt ex eo aquae. 
The jawbone of an ass is not only specified here 
but the place from which the water flowed is indi¬ 
cated as the hollow left by the breaking out of the 
molar tooth. 

Perhaps we ought not to be surprised that Wycliffe, 
whose version 1380 was based upon the Vulgate, made 
the passage to read; And so the Lord opnede awoong 
(i. e. a grinder) tooth in the cheek boon of the asse , 
and watris wenten out of it. 

The same remark might be made respecting the 
Douay version 1609-10, which is a very literal trans¬ 
lation of the Vulgate. It reads; Our Lord therfore 
opened a great tooth in the jawe of the asse, and there 
issued oid of it waters. The note attached leaves no 
possible doubt as to the meaning of the text, and is 
in part, as follows; “ It was a greater miracle to draw 
water out of a drie bone, then out of the earth or 
stones.” 

But we are, and ought to be, surprised at the read¬ 
ing of the Genevan version 1560 whose translators 
were scholarly men. This version reads; Then God 
brake the cheeke tooth, that was in the jaw, and water 
came thereout . . . It is too evident from this 


20 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


rendering, that they were in sympathy with their 
Catholic brethren and believed in this “ greater mira¬ 
cle.” 

All Bible readers who adopt the Revised version, 
may be congratulated that there is no longer any oc¬ 
casion for falling into the miserable error of believ¬ 
ing, that the jawbone of an ass, already so remarka¬ 
ble as an instrument of slaughter, should also become 
at one and the same time, a fountain and drinking 
cup from which Samson slaked his thirst. 

I. Samuel x:24. And Samuel said to all the peo¬ 
ple, See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen, that 
there is none like him among all the people? And 
all the people shouted, and said, God save the king. 

For the last clause, God save the king, we have 
in the margin what proposes to be a literal transla¬ 
tion of the Hebrew, and it reads; “ Let the king live .” 
If this is true then the free rendering in our text, by 
inserting the word “God,” is most unwarrantable. 
By reference to the original text, the word “ God ” is 
not found in this connection. Gesenius in his Heb. 
Lex., renders the words of the Hebrew; Long live 
the king. The Septuagint follows the Hebrew. The 
Vulgate does the same and simply reads; Vi vat 
rex. 

It may be a matter of interest to inquire when and 
by whom this rendering was first introduced into our 
English versions? Turning to Wycliffe’s Bible 1380 
which was the first English translation of the whole 


MISTRANSLATED 


21 


Bible, we find that this clause reads; Lyue the kyng . 
Next in regular line, is that of Coverdale’s Bible 
1535 and here we find the clause translated; God 
sciue the new Tcynge. In other connections he uses the 
same freedom in translating, for example, III Kings 
i: 25 reads; God sciue the kynge Adonias. In the 
same chapter, verses 34 and 39 read respectively; 
God sciue kynge Solomon. 

The reasons in the mind of Coverdale for taking 
such liberties with the Hebrew text, are not easily 
determined. In general it may be remarked, that just 
at this time, the most important question before the 
English people was the supremacy of Henry VIII in 
Church as well as in State. The conflict was with 
Borne. Among other important interests involved 
was the circulation of the Bible in the language of 
the people. This, the king favored. With such a de¬ 
fender against papal persecution, it is natural that 
the people should be elated, and should hold the king 
in the highest esteem. Appreciating somewhat the 
condition of public affairs, possibly we ought not to 
be surprised that Henry VIII is represented, in the 
title page of Coverdale’s Bible, seated upon his throne, 
with one hand upon his sword, and with the other 
presenting a Bible to the Bishops. Again, possibly 
we ought not to be offended that in the dedication 
to the king, Coverdale should indulge in fulsome 
flattery, in comparing Henry VIII to “ that noble 
and gracyous kynge, (Josias).” How far this loyal 
sentiment influenced the mind of Coverdale to make 


22 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


so free a translation of this clause of our text, must 
be left to the judgment of the reader. 

In tracing further the line of English versions, we 
find from the Genevan down, that they all follow 
Coverdale’s example, excepting that each puts into 
the margin the literal translation of the Hebrew. The 
Authorized version 1611 follows in the same line, as 
seen in our text. The Revised version 1885 we are 
sorry to say, likewise, follows in the same line. 
Doubtless the revisers justified themselves by the au¬ 
thority of established usage. But usage, however 
long established, and whatever the occasion of its 
origin, cannot justify so great a wrong. 

Psalm x:4. The wicked, through the pride of his 
countenance , will not seek after God: God is not in all 
his thoughts. 

A better rendering of this second clause is found in 
the Genevan version 1516 which reads; The wicked 
is so proud, that he seeketh not for God: he thinketh 
alwayes, There is no God. Practically the ungodly 
man is an atheist. He ignores the God of nature, of 
the Bible, and of his own soul. In his purposes and 
plans, he refuses to recognize God. Bishop Horne, 
in his valuable Commentary on the Psalms, trans¬ 
lates the last clause; all his imaginations are, There 
is no God. At best, then, the proud atheistical life 
of the ungodly, is based upon a vain imagination. 
He tries to believe, There is no God. He builds 
upon an assumed negative. Deceived by prosperity 
he says; I shall never he in adversity. 


MISTRANSLATED 


23 


The clause as translated in our text, God is not in 
all his thoughts, expresses a general truth, but the 
better rendering is; All his thoughts are, There is 
no God. The truth thus expressed is specific and 
particular. The Authorized version 1611 followed 
the Bishop’s Bible 1568 which renders the passage; 
The ungodly is so proude, that he carethnotfor God, 
neither is God in all his thoughtes. But the Revised 
version 1885 goes back to the Genevan, and renders 
the clause; All his thoughts are, There is no God. 
In this the revisers did well, in that they were per¬ 
suaded that this rendering was most in keeping with 
the original Hebrew. 

Psalm xvii: 15. As for me, I will behold thy face 
in righteousness: I shall be satisfied, tohen I awake, 
with thy likeness. 

To most readers the phrase with thy likeness, car¬ 
ries with it the idea of moral likeness; and so they 
understand the words as setting forth David’s hope of 
a final resurrection, and his great satisfaction that he 
not only will see God, but that he will be like Him. 
This is a precious hope and from gospel teaching, it 
shall be realized. (See pp. 63,64.) But is it the teach¬ 
ing of this passage? Dr. Alexander in his Commen¬ 
tary says-, “The last word (i. e. likeness), does not 
mean resemblance in the abstract, but form, shape, or 
visable appearance.” He translates the verse; I in 
righteousness shall see thy face; I shall be satisfied 
in aioaking with thy appearance. The connection 
seems to demand this. The words of our text are a 


24 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


part of the Psalmist’s prayer. He prays to be de¬ 
livered from men of the world, who have their por¬ 
tion in this life. They have much to enjoy, but he 
will not be moved by their prosperity. He will be 
satisfied with the realization of God’s presence with 
its joy, peace and blessedness, whatever his own 
worldly surroundings may be. God’s presence, with 
the light of His countenance, is a realization of pres¬ 
ent blessedness. In the experience of the Christian, 
as in the experience of David, there may be an 
awakening out of sleep, an opening of the eyes to 
present spiritual realities, which are healthful and 
satisfying. 

“Some interpreters,” says Calvin, “with more sub¬ 
tlety than propriety, restrict this to the resurrection 
at the last day, as if David did not expect to experi¬ 
ence in his heart a blessed joy until the life to come. 
. . . I readily admit that this satisfaction . . . will 
not in all respects be perfect before the last coming of 
Christ; but as the saints, when God causes some rays 
of the knowledge of His love to enter into their hearts, 
find great enjoyment in the light thus communi¬ 
cated, David justly calls this peace or joy of the 
Holy Spirit satisfaction .” 

According to this view of the text, there ought to 
be a present satisfaction growing out of our waking 
up to the realization of God’s presence. And this 
should be taken as an earnest, of what the full frui¬ 
tion of His presence shall be in the eternal world. 


MISTRANSLA TED 


25 


Psalm xxiii:4. Yea, though I walk through the 
valley of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for 
thou art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me. 

This is a Psalm of Christian, as well as Hebrew 
life, in which the keymote is, childlike trust in Jeho¬ 
vah, who is the triumphant Redeemer of the New 
as well as the Old Testament. Saints in all ages have 
been encouraged by the inspiring words of this song. 
Not only in prosperity but in adversity true believers 
are comforted, especially, by the fourth verse. 
Though called in the \ icissitudes of life to pass 
through real occasions of sorrow and danger, as well 
as shadows of fear, David’s assurance may be our 
assurance, that the rod and staff of the good shepherd 
will guide us safely. 

But too many mar the unity of the Psalm by inter¬ 
preting this fourth verse as referring to the hour of 
death. This is true of the old commentators, Scott, 
Henry, and Horne. Especially the last who indulges 
his pen as follows; “ To apprehend the scenery of 
this verse, we must conceive the church militant and 
the church triumphant, as two mountains, between 
which lieth the * valley of the shadow of death ’ neces¬ 
sary to be passed by those, who would go from one to 
the other.” The whole exposition is clothed in this 
highly imaginative dress. Singularly enough in this, 
the good bishop offends against his own ideal of in¬ 
terpretation, as set forth in his preface, that no ex¬ 
position of a passage should be attempted before the 
interpreter “hath attained its literal meaning.” That 


26 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


such exposition may be “ pious and true but foreign 
to the text.” It should be remarked that he is speak¬ 
ing here, especially, of the abuse of the spiritual in¬ 
terpretation of the Scrij)tures. The proper use of 
such interpretations he justly defends. 

Instead of allowing the leading thought of the 
Psalm to give character and right interpretation to 
the text, by almost universal consent the text is 
allowed to give character to the Psalm. By such in¬ 
terpretation also, this verse becomes a death bed 
verse, as its words are the last breathed into the ear 
of the dying saint. And all most contrary to the 
Psalmist’s intention, and also to the teaching of 
experience, since it is in the midst of life’s fightings 
and fears, that the believer needs the confidence here 
inspired. 

The occasion of this misunderstanding to the Eng¬ 
lish reader, comes through a slight mistranslation of 
two or three words of the text. Yea , though I walk, 
Dr. J. A. Alexander translates, Also when I walk, 
and remarks; “ The also shows that something new 
is to be added; . . . The common version (yea, 

though I walk) is too indefinite and hypothetical.” 
Again he says; “The common version, shadow of 
death, conveys more than the original, and fails to 
reproduce its compound form.” His rendering of the 
Hebrew word is, Death — shade. Calvin also renders it 
deadly shade, in the sense of a place of “ imminent 
danger.” While the rendering of the Genevan 
version 1560 is in common with our text yet 


MISTRANSLA TED 


27 


it explains by a short note; “ Though he were to 
be in danger of death, as the sheepe that wandreth 
in the darke valley without his shepheard,” he would 
fear no evil. Delitzsch commenting on the meaning 
of this word says; “ It signifies the shadow of death 
as an epithet of the most fearful darkness . . . 

especially of darkness such as makes itself felt in a 
wild, uninhabited desert, Jer. ii:6.” He further 
remarks in this connection; “This rod and staff in 
the hand of God comfort him, (David) i. e., preserve 
to him the feeling of security, and therefore a cheer¬ 
ful spirit. Even when he passes through a valley dark 
and gloomy as the shadow of death, where surprises 
and calamities of every kind threaten him he fears 
no misfortune.” 

John Bunyan, the master of the Scriptures in their 
relation to Christian experience, locates this dark 
valley not at the close of the pilgrim’s way, but ir. 
the very midst of it. After his fight with Apollyon 
in the “ Valley of Humiliation,” Christian is made 
to enter the “ Valley of the Shadow of Death.” The 
way here was dark and narrow, and “ he was beset with 
fears and dangers beyond all his former experiences.” 
But ere long “ he thought he heard the voice of a 
man as going before him, saying, “ ‘ Though I walk 
through the valley of the shadow of death I will fear 
no ill, for Thou art with me.’ ” Because of these words 
he was cheered, and the sun arose. The author signi¬ 
ficantly adds; “ In this light therefore he came to the 
end of the valley.” 


28 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Oar text, then, correctly translated, shall be found 
to be in harmony with the whole Psalm. The 
Psalmist would inspire believers with confidence to 
trust Jehovah in adversity as well as in prosperity. 
By his gentle providence God guides His children, 
even as the shepherd guides his sheep, by his staff 
and crook, safely through real and imaginary dangers. 
With this interpretation the Psalm without a break, 
is a song of confidence, and fitly closes with the bold 
refrain; Surely goodness and mercy shall follow 
me all the days of my life: and I will dwell in 
the house of the Lord forever. 

After all that can be said, however, suffer this Psalm 
with its inspiring faith, to minister to the wants of 
the soul in the last moments of its life. But con¬ 
fine it not here, let it go forth in its strength and 
beauty to minister to the living while yet in the midst 
of life’s conflict. 

Psalm xxxvii:35. I have seen the wicked in great 
power, and spreading himself like a green hay tree. 

36, Yet he passed away, and, lo , he was not: yea, 
I sought him hid he coidcl not he found. 

The contrast, throughout this whole Psalm, is be¬ 
tween the estate of the righteous and that of the 
wicked And the Psalmist makes it plain that the 
prosperity of the merely worldly man, however great, 
ought not be made the occasion of envy. 

If the bay tree of the text, is one with the laurel, 
as many suppose, then it fulfills the demands of the 


MISTEANSLA TED 


29 


comparison to modern readers, at least, since it is at¬ 
tractive in its appearance, and is associated with no¬ 
bility and glory. In some climates the tree grows to 
a tall and commanding height. But not so in Pales¬ 
tine, where it is said to be quite uncommon, and to 
attain, comparatively, to a small size. So that the as¬ 
sociation of the laurel with royal pomp, could not 
have been present to the mind of David, however ap¬ 
propriate and significant it may be to us. 

The Septuagint has; Kedrous ton Libanou. 
This is followed by the Vulgate which reads; Cedro s 
Lib an i. But the word in the original means, according 
to Gesenius in his Heb. Lex., “ A native tree, growing in 
its native soil, not transplanted.” Jewish doctors are 
said to have understood the Hebrew to signify, sim¬ 
ply, “a native tree;” that is “a tree which grows in 
its own native soil.” But the translators of our 
text, somewhat doubtful as to the true meaning, 
introduced the preferable reading in the margin, 
wdiich reads; “A green tree that groioeth in his own 
soil” 

In a landscape, a flourishing tree that towers above 
its fellows, attracts attention, and forms a picture in 
the mind of the passer-by. David doubtless had ob¬ 
served and admired such trees. So when he says; 
I have seen the wicked in great poiver, And spread¬ 
ing himself like a green tree in its native soil, possi¬ 
bly it was Saul, he had in mind. For there was not 
among the children of Israel a goodlier person than 
lie, Like a tall flourishing tree, Saul stood head and 


30 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


shoulders above any of his people. Although a mere 
supposition, yet from existing similarities, it seems 
quite natural to think that the man should suggest 
the tree, and the tree suggest the man. When first 
introduced by Samuel as king, Saul by his extraordi¬ 
nary stature and noble presence, commanded the ad¬ 
miration of the people, and they shouted; Let the 
king live . 

But there came a change. Flattered by successes 
in war, and surrounded by all that could minister to 
royal pride, by his wicked and ignoble acts, Saul ren¬ 
dered himself an object of pity rather than envy. 
Waxing worse and worse, deserted of God, reproved 
by the prophet, who forewarned him of his death, like 
a fallen monarch of the wood, to the passer-by, to, he 
was not. From the above considerations, the transla¬ 
tion of the Revised version is preferable, which reads; 
I have seen the wicked in great power, And spreading 
himself like a green tree in its ncdive soil. By this 
rendering the demand of the Hebrew text is met, as 
well as that of the comparison which runs through 
the whole Psalm. 

Isaiah lv : 4. Behold, I have given him for a wit¬ 
ness to the people, a leader and commander to the 
people. 

We have in this text an illustration of the mislead¬ 
ing power of a single word. The passage is doubt¬ 
less prophetic, and looks forward to the coming of the 
Messiah; but to whom shall He come? It would seem 


MISTRANSLATED 


31 


from the text that the promise was limited to the Jews. 
The very next verse, however, declares; Behold, thou 
shalt call a nation that thou knowest not, and nations 
that knew not thee shall run unto thee. The connec¬ 
tion therefore, plainly indicates that the promise is to 
the Gentiles; besides, the correct rendering of the 
original makes this certain. The Septuagint trans¬ 
lates, et hues in , and the Vulgate, gentibus; in 
each case the Hebrew word means peoples. The Re¬ 
vised version rightly reads; Behold I have given him 
for a witness to the peoples, a leader and commander 
to the peoples. Thus by the mistranslation of a single 
word an important prophecy is obscured. 

Too much stress cannot be laid upon this one ex¬ 
ample; but it will be found that the word people is 
uniformly used in the Old Testament of the Author¬ 
ized version, whether or not the reference is to the 
Jews or to the Gentiles. By such usage serious con¬ 
fusion has been introduced into many prophetic pas¬ 
sages, in which the English reader is hopelessly in 
the dark as to the correct interpretation. The Re¬ 
vised version 1885 in its preface says; “ The word 
‘peoples’ was nowhere used by the King James’s 
Translators in the Old Testament, and in the New 
Testament it occurs only twice (Rev. x. 11, xvii. 15). 
The effect of this was to leave the rendering of numer¬ 
ous passages inadequate or obscure or even positively 
misleading.” The English reader of the Bible is 
under unspeakable obligation to the revisers of the 
Old Testament for bringing out the meaning of the 


82 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


original and thus making clear this distinction. 
With the consent of the reader I would here cite a 
few examples from my Hist, of the Eng. Bible , p. 
470, 2nd ed., to show this existing confusion, and 
how the revisers dispelled it. “ If a blessing or a 
curse is pronounced, we know upon whom it falls, 
whether upon God’s chosen people or upon the 
peoples or nations without. In Isaiah viii: 9, we read 
in the Authorized version, ‘ Associate yourselves, O 
ye people , and ye shall be broken in pieces.’ This 
would seem to be a threatening against the Jews. 
But according to the Hebrew, and in the Revised 
version it reads: ‘Make an uproar, O ye peoples , 
and ye shall be broken in pieces . . . Take coun¬ 

sel together, and it shall be brought to nought: . . . 
for God is with us.’ Instead of a threatening, it be¬ 
comes a pledge of protection to God’s chosen people. 
So in Isaiah xiv: 6, the Authorized version reads; ‘ He 
who smote the people in wrath.’ This would seem to 
refer to the Jews. But the Revised version reads; 

‘ That smote the peoples in wrath.’ Thus making it 
clear that the Gentiles are intended.” Other ex¬ 
amples might be cited, but the above will suffice to 
show the importance of the right rendering of a single 
word. We can scarcely estimate this importance to 
the English reader if he cares at all to understand 
the bearing of prophecy upon the Gentiles and also 
upon the Jews. A prophetic promise or threatening 
is too serious and far-reaching to be lightly passed 
over. 


MISTRANSLATED 


S3 


Matthew Vi: 13. And lead us not into tempta¬ 
tion, but deliver us from evil: For thine is the king¬ 
dom, and the power, and the glory, forever. Amen. 

Is the second clause of this verse a mistranslation? 
The rendering of the Revised version, bid deliver us 
from the evil one, gives, as it would seem, the answer 
in the affirmative. Then the reputation of the En¬ 
glish company for conservatism, and the acknowl¬ 
edged scholarship) of both the English and American 
committees, together with their faithful and consci¬ 
entious labors, all strongly favor the wisdom of the 
change. But a thorough examination of the grounds 
for making it, may reveal that there are not only two 
sides to the question, but possibly, the preponderance 
of evidence may favor the correctness of our passage. 

There is no doubt but that the revisers had the 
authority of the original, so far as the Greek form of 
the word is concerned. The same is equally true in 
respect to the translators of the Authorized version. 
For, as a matter of fact, the Greek adjective may be 
treated as a neuter, as in our text, or as a masculine, 
as in the Revised version. So Dr. Robinson states 
in his Gr. Lex. of N. T. The Greek adjective itself 
therefore, decides nothing. v 

A more plausible claim for the change, is that New 
Testament usage sanctions it. In many cases it cer¬ 
tainly does. But after examining the passages it 
may be said also, that in many other cases it does 
not When the Greek adjective appears in the 
critical text of Westcott and Hort, the Revised ver- 


84 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


sion, almost without exception, translates, the evil 
one. The Authorized version, however, makes several 
exceptions. Alford, in his N. T. for Eng. Readers, 
does not agree with either of them. This lack 
of uniformity in dealing with this single word, makes 
the argument from New Testament usage, less con¬ 
vincing than it might otherwise be. It is evident 
that the use of this adjective as a masculine, or as a 
neuter, is dependent upon the connection. No one 
could object to the translation of the Revised version 
of I John ii: 13, which reads; because ye have overcome 
the evil one; but many would hesitate to follow its 
rendering of I John v:19, which reads; and the whole 
ivorld lieth in the evil one. Much better the render¬ 
ing of this clause in the Authorized version, which 
treats the word as a neuter, and reads; and the whole 
world lieth in wickedness. 

But another important claim favoring the render¬ 
ing, the evil one, in the passage, is that it carries with 
it a depth of meaning not found in the simple word 
evil. Dr. Schaff, in The International Revision 
Commentary, in approving the change to the evil one, 
says; “It goes to the root of the matter.” It is true 
that by this rendering, the petitioner is brought face 
to face with a personality. And yet the depth of the 
petition, deliver us from evil, is a question for indi¬ 
vidual Christian consciousness to decide. And it 
must be that each petitioner, in his spiritual conflict 
with the powers of darkness, in offering this petition, 
understands it to mean all evil, comprising not only 


MISTRANSLATED 


35 


physical but moral and spiritual, commensurate with 
the evils of death and of life , of things present and 
of things to come. 

Alford in advocating the rendering the petition, 
deliver us from evil, says; “ The adjective here is cer¬ 
tainly neuter; the introduction of the mention of 
the ‘ evil one ’ would seem here to be incongruous.” 
Lange remarks; “ If by p oner on the power of dark¬ 
ness is meant, as manifested in the kingdom of dark¬ 
ness, it would include not only that kingdom itself, 
but also its author, and even its outward and temporal 
consequences. Such is undoubtedly the meaning of 
the text.” 

According to Olshausen, the masculine is more 
agreeable to Bible usage, yet he thinks that it is a 
matter of indifference which is taken, “ provided the 
neuter is regarded as including all that is wicked and 
evil, according to which notion it is Satan’s very ele¬ 
ment.” Bengel remarks: “ Better as our version 
(German) from evil in general, in its widest sense.” 

As having an important bearing on the question 
the remark of Stier, in his Words of the Lord Jesus, 
is worthy of consideration. He says in substance; 
There is nothing personal in the whole of the second 
part of the prayer. The Greek word for evil must 
correspond with the Greek words for bread, trespass, 
temptation. From this we may justly conclude that 
the introducing the name of the evil one would de¬ 
stroy the harmony of the several petitions. What¬ 
ever prepossessions therefore, may have been enter- 


36 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


tained for the reading of the Revised version, this 
suggestion with the other considerations above, 
strongly favor the correctness of the translation of 
our text. 

Matthew xxiii: 24. Ye blind guides, which strain 
at a gnat, and sicallow a camel. 

The words, strain at , are either a mistranslation or 
a blunder of the printer. This rendering is found 
first, in the Authorized version 1611. The Bishop’s 
Bible 1568, and the earlier English versions, includ¬ 
ing Tyndale 1526, all read; strayne oid. There is 
one exception, however, the Rlieims version 1582 
translates; straine a gnat. There is no typographi¬ 
cal error here, and possibly there may be none in the 
Authorized version. Our translators have at least one 
defender in Alford, who in his Commentary , 1872, 
wrote; “The ‘strain at a gnat,’ in our present auth. 
vers, for “strain Old a gnat,” of the early English vss., 
seems not to have been a mistake, as sometimes sup¬ 
posed, but a deliberate alteration, meaning, ‘ strain 
(out the wine) at (the occurrence of) a gnat.’ ” Dr. 
Schaff intimates in his Inter. Nat. Com., 1882, that 
Alford had changed his views and corrected this ex¬ 
planation. (See note, in loco.) Whether this phrase 
is a mistranslation, or an error of the printer, it cer¬ 
tainly obscures the meaning. The word “ strain ” con¬ 
nected with the word “ out ” has a well defined mean¬ 
ing, which suits the connection. But with the word 
“ at,” it has quite a different signification. In wrest- 


MISTRA NS LA TED 


37 


ling with this difficulty, Matthew Henry, in loco, curi¬ 
ously remarks; “ In their practice they (the Pharisees) 
strained at gnats, heaved at them, with seeming 
dread.” The word “ heaved ” is quite as hard to 
explain in this connection, as the word strain. 

As the clause reads, whatever the explanation of 
the phrase, strain at, the force of the comparison is 
confined to the size of the animals. But there is an 
additional underlying idea of ceremonial defilement, 
which adds greatly to the meaning. And here the 
translators are plainly at fault. In the original it is 
not a gnat, but the gnat. The Revised version cor¬ 
rectly renders the clause; strain out the gnat' and 
swallow the camel. By which we are to understand 
that it was not an ordinary gnat, but a wine fly, an 
animalcule, that breeds in wine. To swallow this 
was supposed by the Pharisees to be a violation of 
Lev. xi:20, 23, 41, 42. According to Lange; The 
Jews strained the wine in order to avoid drinking an 
unclean animal. The statement of straining out the 
gnat (wine fly) is in no sense hypothetical, but 
founded on a Jewish custom, in order to avoid defile¬ 
ment. And herein lies the deeper meaning which 
brings out the force of the comparison. Dr. Schaff 
says; “The camel was the largest of the impure ani¬ 
mals forbidden for food (Lev. xi:4), as the gnat was 
the smallest. What was impossible literally, is only 
too possible figuratively. The reality of Pharisaic sin 
exceeded the figure.” (See Inter. Rev. Com.) 

Our passage thus understood is relieved of ambi- 


38 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


guity. In following the tradition of the elders, the 
Pharisees took great credit to themselves in avoiding 
the least possible occasion of ceremonial defilement. 
But in following their own inclinations, they did not 
hesitate to set aside not only the ceremonial but the 
moral law, and to indulge in the most heinous sins. 

John v:39. Search the Scriptures; for in them ye 
think ye have eternal life: and they are they ivhich 
testify of me. 

Shall the Greek term for the word search be con¬ 
strued, as here, in the imperative, or, as many prefer, 
in the indicative? and read; Ye search the Scriptures. 
As to the preferable rendering, authorities are di¬ 
vided. In the face of able scholars who have made 
the Greek of the New Testament a lifelong study, it 
must be that, a certain American clergyman was very 
bold when he declared from his pulpit (as is cur¬ 
rently reported in the daily press) that, “ Christ did 
not say to the Jews, ‘Search the Scriptures.’ ” Every 
Bible student, however, after carefully weighing the 
evidences, may in due scholarly humility accept and 
defend one or the other of these interpretations. 

Those who render the Greek as an imperative, 
think they find ample ground, in the example of the 
Greek fathers, whom they assert ought to be authority 
in the matter of their own language. They urge that 
Cyril, of Alexandria, was the only exception, as all the 
others construed the word in the imperative. Again 
it is claimed, specially by Alford that, “ the impera - 


MISTRANSLATED 


39 


five sense only will be found to cohere with the pre¬ 
vious verses. . . . And no other sense will suit 

the word search, which cannot be used, as in the in¬ 
dicative it would be, with blame attached to it,—‘ ye 
make nice and frivolous search into the letter of the 
Scripture ;’ but implies a thorough search (see also 
I Pet. i. 11) into the contents and spirit of Scripture” 
On the contrary those who render the word in the 
indicative and read; Ye search the scriptures , be¬ 
cause ye think that in them ye have eternal life , are 
equally confident that it is demanded by the connec¬ 
tion. Bengal, in loco , quoting Brent, says; “That 
there are very judicious interpreters who adopt the 
indicative; and the whole structure of the discourse 
certainly confirms it: com. ver. 33, etc., and especially, 
because ye think” This is the reason for their search¬ 
ing. They did not need the command; for as a mat¬ 
ter of fact, the Jews were already diligent in the 
study of their sacred writings. Besides had Christ 
intended a command, he would not have added the 
above reason, but would have given instructions as to 
the right mode of searching. Or, according to 
Lange, in loco, “ Had He intended to exhort the Jews 
to search the Scriptures, He would not have contin¬ 
ued: ‘for in them ye think . . . but: ‘ through 

them ye have, or rather, shall have —eternal life; ’ 
nor would He have added: ‘And they are they which 
testify of Me,’ but ‘/or’; this being the reason wdiy 
they should study the Scriptures.” Evidently the 
connection favors the indicative. “ Thus viewed,” 


40 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


says Olshausen; “ the passage takes its place in the 
connection with less ambiguity.” We welcome, 
therefore, the rendering of the Revised version 1881 
which reads; Ye search the scriptures, because ye 
think that in them ye have eternal life; and these 
are they which bear witness of me. 

John xvi:8. And when he is come, he will reprove 
the world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judg¬ 
ment. 

In this text, we have an example, not uncommon 
in the Authorized version, in which the preferable 
rendering is put in the margin, which reads; “ con¬ 
vince .” Robinson’s Gr. Lex. gives as a second 
meaning; “ to admonish, reprove, rebuke; ” but as a 
first meaning it gives; “to convince, to convict.” 
Doubtless, “to convict” comes nearer to the correct 
reading in this connection. The importance of the 
right rendering of this Greek word, can scarcely be 
overestimated, when we realize its bearing upon the 
essential work of the Holy Spirit as set forth in the 
words of the Savior. Alford wisely says; “ It is dif¬ 
ficult to give in one word the deep meaning of the 
original term: ‘convince? approaches perhaps, near 
to it, but does not express the double sense, which is 
manifestly here intended—of a convincing unto salva¬ 
tion, and a convicting unto condemnation:— ‘reprove ’ 
is far too weak, conveying merely the idea of an out¬ 
ward rebuke, whereas this reaches into the heart, and 
works inwardly in both the above-mentioned ways.” 


MISTRANSLATED 


41 


The following comment from Liicke is also quoted 
and indorsed: “ ‘ The testimony of the Holy Ghost in 
behalf of Christ as opposed to the unbelieving world 
(ch. xv:26) is essentially a refutation , a demonstra¬ 
tion of its wrong and error.’ ” Something of this idea 
of refuting and demonstrating, is involved in ti e 
translation of the Rheims version 1582 which reads; 
And when he is come, he shal argue the world of 
sinne, and of justice, and of judgement. The Re¬ 
vised version 1881 reads; And he, when he is come, 
will convict the ivorld in respect of sin, and of righ¬ 
teousness, and of judgment. This seems to be the 
most desirable rendering since the work of convict¬ 
ing involves that of convincing. 

Acts x. i. There was a certain man in Ccesarea 
called Cornelius, a centurion of the hand called the 
Italian band. 

Dr. Eadie, in his Hist. Eng. Bible, II. 367, illus¬ 
trates the possible confusion in the meaning of the 
last clause of this verse, by citing the case of an En¬ 
glish preacher,—whose denomination was not charac¬ 
terized for its high standard of education,—who sought 
to show from this text “ the power of divine grace in 
the conversion of Cornelius. For first, he was a 
soldier, and military life is not favourable to piety, 
and, secondly, he was a leader of a band or company 
of foreign musicians, enlarging eloquently on the 
character of opera singers, many of whom still come 
from Italy.” 


42 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


How far this English preacher was justified in al¬ 
lowing himself to be led astray by the ambiguity of 
the phrase, Italian hand, we may not determine; 
nevertheless, it is true, that the ordinary reader, 
either in reading or hearing the Bible read, is 
dependent for his apprehe nsion of the meaning of 
any given passage, upon the plain and modern mean¬ 
ing of the words. 

Dr. Edward Robinson in his Gr. N. T. Lex., de¬ 
fines the term speires to mean; “Roman foot sol¬ 
diers, prob. a cohort.” The Vulgate renders it co¬ 
hort is. Tyndale 1534 translates; a captayne of 
the soudiers of Italy; and is followed by Cranmer 
1539. The Genevan version 1557 reads; A captayne 
of the soudiers called the Italian hande. The 
Rlieims version 1582 reads; Centurion of that which 
is called the Italian hand; and is followed almost 
literally by our Authorized version, as above. It 
must be said that the Revised version 1881 did very 
little toward the removing the obscurity of this 
passage, since it only introduces the word “ cohort ” in 
the margin, as a possible rendering. How much bet¬ 
ter for the sake of the ordinary reader to have adopt¬ 
ed Dr. Robinson’s definition; or to have followed 
Tyndale’s translation. “ A version,” says Dr. Eadie 
in his Hist. Eng. Bible , “ ought never, if possible, 
to present to the ordinary reader a doubtful sense . . 
. . . His question is not what means the Greek 

text, but what mean those English words?” 

“ The centurion ,” says Meyer, in loco, “ was of the 


MISTRANSLA TED 


43 


Italian cohort, which, stationed at Caesarea consisted 
of Italians, not natives of the country, like many 
other Roman troops in Syria.” 

Acts xvii: 23. For as I passed by, and beheld your 
devotions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO 
THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye 
ignorantly worship, him declare I unto you. 

Paul’s presence in Athens constitutes an epoch in 
the history of the early planting of Christianity. 
We need to study therefore, his every movement and 
word, in this account as given by the writer. Land¬ 
ing at Athens as Paul’s custom was, he entered the 
synagogue, where he reasoned with the Jews and de¬ 
vout persons. Next, we meet him in the market¬ 
place or Agora, where the Athenians and strangers 
gathered to tell, or to hear some new thing, Here 
he came in contact not only with philosophers but 
with the rabble; some of whom denounced him as a 
babbler, because he preached to them Jesus and the 
resurrection. From here, they brought him to the 
Areopagus, the open court of the judges, with it’s 
stone benches, situated on the summit of Mars’ Hill. 
It was in this court, in the presence of the most 
learned assembly of Athens, that Paul delivered this 
remarkable speech, which shows not only the skill of 
the orator but the faithfulness of the preacher. 

By reason of the mistranslation of several words 
in this account, the delicate portraiture, as drawn by 
the writer, is somewhat marred and so far obscured, 


44 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


The 16th verse preceding our text, reads; . . . his 

spirit teas stirred in him, when he saw the city wholly 
given to idolatry. In a general sense this was true; 
but the original does not say this. A better transla¬ 
tion is, his spirit teas stirred in him when he saw the 
city full of idols. Says Hackett in his Commentary ; 
“ The epithet applies to the city, not directly to the 
inhabitants.” He further adds in this connection; 
“A person could hardly take his position at any 
point in ancient Athens, where the eye did not range 
over temples, altars, and statues of the gods almost 
without number.” 

In the 22nd verse, the phrase too superstitious, 
now understood wholly in a bad sense, is misleading. 
Paul did not wish to stigmatize the disposition of 
the Athenians to worship, as something unworthy, 
which would have been to excite unnecessarily the 
wrath of his hearers. Alford renders the word “ very 
religious ,” and wisely adds; “ To understand this 
word as A. V., ‘ too superstitious ’ is to miss the fine 
and delicate tact of the speech, by which he at once 
parries the charge against him, and in so doing intro¬ 
duces the great Truth which he came to preach.” 

So likewise the phrase in our text, your devotions, 
conveys a wrong impression. Paul did not say, he 
beheld the Athenians worshiping at their altars, 
but rather, he beheld the objects of their worship. 
This harmonizes with the 16th verse, where, as in the 
Revised version it reads; His (Paul’s) spirit was 
provoked within him , as he beheld the city full of 


MISTRANSLATED 


45 


idols. Besides it makes our passage harmonious 
throughout, which in the '.Revised version reads; For 
as I passed along , and observed the objects of your 
worship , I found also an altar with this inscription , 
TO AN UNKNOWN GOD. Neither did Paul 
condemn this inscription, but seized upon it as an 
opportune text to direct the religious tendency of the 
Athenian mind, and thus lead to a knowledge of the 
one and only true God. 

By the discreet words of the Apostle as above 
explained, he was permitted to declare some of the 
fundamental truths of Christianity. But when he 
came to speak of the judgment and the resurrection; 
some mocked, while others by way of apology for the 
interruption, said; We will hear thee again of this 
matter. So, it is recorded, Paid departed from 
among them. It would be fruitless to speculate what 
might have been, if these representative men of 
Athens had accepted the teachings of the Apostle. 
This if must ever stand prominent among the many 
great ifs of Ecclesiastical History. 

Acts xxvi:28. Then Agrippa said unto Paul , 
Almost thou persuadest me to be a Christian. 

This passage is remarkable for its sacred associa¬ 
tions. Few texts were so often used as this, in the 
revival services of years gone by. To many, it brings 
to mind the crisp cold nights, the warm basement, 
or the crowded upper room of the church, where the 
atmosphere was aglow with true religious feeling. 


46 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


To such persons therefore any intimation that this 
text is not correctly translated, or has anything wrong 
about it, so violates these sacred memories, that it is 
met with a deep heartfelt resentment. It is as if 
violent hands were being laid upon the very word of 
life itself. 

And yet it may be that our interest centers in the 
associations rather than in any religious excellence 
of the text. And possibly the passage may be found 
to be most remarkable for its irreligiousness. As a 
matter of fact, the words are the words of a man. 
Inspiration in this case, as well as all others, where 
men or devils are introduced in the Bible as speakers, 
is not responsible for the truth or falseness of their 
utterances. Though this passage is in the Bible, it 
is not of the Bible. It cannot be quoted as God’s 
word, but only man’s word. Doubtless the dishon¬ 
esty of these words, will become more evident from 
the translation of the Revised version, which reads; 
And Agrippa said unto Paid, With hut little per¬ 
suasion thou wouldest fain make me a Christian. 

According to this version, the apparent sincerity of 
Agrippa’s confession, that Paul’s appeal had touched 
his heart, disappears. Instead of confessing that he 
was almost persuaded, he resents the sober words of 
the Apostle, and with a light jest, says; With hut 
little persuasion thou wouldest fain make me a 
Christian. Thus with jest, or as some think sarcasm, 
(See Myer, in loco,) Agrippa holds up Paul to the 
contempt of those present in the court, for his relig- 


MISTRANSLATED 


47 


ious zeal in thinking to win him over so very easily 
to Christianity. In Agrippa’s words therefore, we 
find nothing to command our respect. And we ought 
to be thankful that the Revised version, by its faith¬ 
fulness to the Greek text, brings out the true intent 
of Agrippa’s sarcastic reply to Paul. 

Many persons in their religious experience, are 
brought face to face with the question, as to whether 
or not they will yield absolute submission to the will 
of God. At such critical periods, they need solemn 
warnings. As to this text, however, if it were ever 
appropriate, it, is so no longer, by reason of the cor¬ 
rect translation above. Agrippa’s insincerity as a 
man, and his contemptuous dealings with the sober 
words of the Apostle, in the above connection, render 
him a most unhappy example to be held up to those 
who are honest in their feelings, and who are almost 
persuaded to become Christians. 

Romans hi: 4. God forbid: yea , let God be true , 
but every man a liar; . . . .. 

The first clause in this text presents an illustra¬ 
tion, and there are many in our English Bible, in 
which the word God is needlessly introduced, since 
it has no place in the original. In the Greek, the 
words are, me g enoi to. These are rendered in the 
Latin, by absit; and this in turn, in Wycliffe’s 
earlier version, by Fer be it. But in his later ver¬ 
sion, which was done by another hand, we have; 




48 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


God forbede. And this is followed by Tyndale 
1525 by Coverdale 1535 and so along the whole line, 
including, I am sorry to be compelled to add, our late 
Revised version. 

In a text note in Lange, D r. Philip Schaf?, one of 
the editors, says; “ The God forbid of the Authorized 
Version ... is almost profane. . . . Remem¬ 

ber the third commandment, as explained by Christ, 
Matt, v: 34.” Dr. Charles Hodge, in his Comment¬ 
ary on Romans , remarks; “ These words, which occur 
so often in our version, are a most unhappy render¬ 
ing of the original, which means simply let it not be , 
equivalent, therefore, to by no means , or far from it. 

. . . The Scriptures do not authorize such a use 

of the name of God, as this phrase shows to have been 
common among the English translators of the Bible.” 
Alford in loco says; “ literally, let it not be” But 
in chapter vi: 2, singularly enough, he adds; “God 
forbid is the only adequ ate rendering of the expres¬ 
sion in the original, let it not be” The occasion, he 
thinks is “ solemn enough ” to justify the use of the 
word God. But evidently the Apostle Paul did not 
think so, since he uses the same words in both con¬ 
nections, which mean simply, let it not be. 

Early English is remarkable for its simplicity. 
Bible language is doubly so, since this characteristic 
belongs to the original text also to the English 
language at the time the Authorized version was 
made. But the tendency has been, and still is, to use 
Strong terms for the sake of emphasis; a false idea 


MISTRANSLA TED 


49 


that often defeats its own end. This is doubtless 
true in the case before us. Other examples might be 
added to show that our translators erred in this di¬ 
rection. No one can understand this better than did 
the authors of our late Revised version. And in many 
instances, they did not hesitate to make the neces¬ 
sary changes. By way of illustration take a single 
example, that of the word damnation , which occurs so 
often in the Authorized version, and grates so 
harshly on the ear. Thanks to the revisers, this 
word is banished, and the word condemnation is made 
to take its place. This latter term far better renders 
the meaning of the Greek term, krima. While 
Bible readers, therefore, are under great obligation 
to the revisers for this, and a number of like changes, 
the pertinent question remains; why did they not 
change this objectionable phrase, God forbid, of our 
text? To have done this would have been to relieve 
the Scriptures from a coarseness, that is not per¬ 
mitted even in ordinary speech. Then it would have 
been an act of justice to the Apostle by relieving 
him from the apparently just charge of using this 
objectionable phrase. Besides the change would 
have been in the interest of simplicity in language, 
and so far, of strength of expression. And withal, 
it would have removed the apparent Scripture au¬ 
thority for the use of such language by ministers, 
and others as well, when the occasion would seem to 
justify it. 


60 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Romans xii: 1. I BESEECH you therefore, breth¬ 
ren, by the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies 
a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is 
your reasonable service. 

This is certainly a familiar passage but not one 
that can be said to be abused, from the fact that it is 
so little used. The Apostle placed a very high esti¬ 
mate upon this exhortation, since he introduced it 
with the warm words; I BESEECH you therefore, 
brethren, by the mercies of God. Again from the 
plainness of the words there seems no difficulty in 
understanding the teaching. But carefully con¬ 
sidered, there is ambiguity in the phrase reasonable 
service. It may mean rational service opposed to 
that which is carnal or fleshly, as explained by Al¬ 
ford. Or it may mean, agreeable to reason, and thus 
the service would be in accordance with the dictates 
of reason. Calvin explains the phrase reasonable 
service as “the right service of God.” That is, to 
serve God from the heart. 

But ought not the word to have been translated 
spiritual instead of reasonable? By referring to the 
appendix of the late Revised version of the N. T., 
we find the word so rendered. The appendix reads; 
“For ‘reasonable’ read ‘spiritual’ with marg. Gr. 
belonging to reason .” The British revisers com¬ 
plied in part with this request, by placing the word 
“ spiritual ” in the margin. And so far, we have 
their judgment that it may have a place in the text. 
By such rendering all ambiguity found in the word 


MISTRANSLATED 


51 


reasonable is removed. Besides it harmonizes with 
the scope of the passage. This spiritual service 
therefore becomes an act of worship. Strivings 
through prayer for purity of heart are comparatively 
in vain so long as the eye, the tongue, the hand, and 
the foot are left to run riot. The sacrificial devoting 
to death of sinful acts as manifested through the 
members of the body, is the living sacrifice intended, 
and this can only be real by being spiritual. Says 
Meyer, in loco, “Paul is glancing at the thank- 
offering, . . . and raises the notion of sacrifice to 

the highest moral idea of self-surrender to God.” 

In the Old Testament economy, the body of a 
beast was presented as a whole burnt offering; in the 
New Testament economy, the body of the worshiper 
is to be offered that it may be purified as by fire. In 
the Old, the act of worship was largely symbolical; 
in the New, it is real. The offerings of the Old Testa¬ 
ment were acceptable to Jehovah, when made in the 
right spirit; this living sacrifice of the New Testa¬ 
ment, which is your spiritual service, is holy and ac¬ 
ceptable unto God. 

I. Coe. hi: 9. For we are labourers together with 
God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are Gods building. 

The first clause of this verse is commonly under¬ 
stood, or rather misunderstood, as setting forth the 
exalted dignity of the Christian ministry. From 
labourers together with God, the thought grows into 
codaborers, co-workers and co-partners in the same 


52 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


work. But from the context the teaching of the 
Apostle seems to be the very opposite. In the sev¬ 
enth verse, he says; So then neither is he thatplanteth 
any thing , neither he that watereth; hut God that 
giveth the increase. Mr. Barnes earnestly combats 
this idea of joint work. He contends that it is not 
in the Greek, and further that there is no parallel 
passage “that speaks of God’s operating jointly with 
his creatures in producing the same result.” From 
the scope of the passage Mr. Barnes thinks;—“The 
idea is, that of depressing or humbling the apostles, 
and of exalting God; and this idea would not be con¬ 
sistent with the interpretation that they were joint 
labourers with him.” 

There is no doubt but that the rendering of this 
phrase in the text, is ambiguous. It is a matter of 
interest to know that this translation is peculiar to 
our present Authorized version. Tyndale 1534 ren¬ 
ders the phrase, goddis labourers; and is followed 
by Cranmer 1539 Geneva 1557 and the Rlieims 1582. 
The last reads; God's coctdiutors. Thus leaving the 
Authorized version 1611 to translate; For we are la¬ 
bourers together with God. The Revised version 
1881 translates; For we are God's fellow-worlcers; 
while Calvin translates, fellowdabourers. In the 
matter of interpretation, he takes a middle ground, 
and says: “He (God) calls forth ministers to be fel¬ 
low-labourers, by means of whom He alone works; 
but, at the same time, in such a way, that they in 
their turn labour in common with him.” Hodge, as 


MISTRANSLA TED 


53 


quoted by Lange, “ combines the two ideas.” Lange 
further remarks: “God’s helpers, who work with God 
—not: wlio do God’s work associatedly (as Ols- 
hausen).” Again he says; “taking the whole con¬ 
text . . . and considering the aim of the whole 

paragraph, we might suppose with Chrysostom, that 
in the repeated mention of God in the last clause 
there was an implied rebuke of the tendency in the 
Church to call themselves after men.” In the same 
connection he adds; “(Though indeed, it must be 
said that the design of the argument is not to dig¬ 
nify the teachers, but to abate the excessive estimate 
put upon them.)” 

As an example of honest dealing with the Scrip¬ 
tures, I have it on the authority of Rev. Joseph F. 
Tuttle, D. D., L. L. D. now President Emeritus of 
Wabash College, Crawfordsville, Ind., that the late 
Rev. Dr. Henry Smith, while Professor of Sacred 
Rhetoric, in Lane Theological Seminary at Cincin¬ 
nati, O., a man remarkable for his learning, as well as 
for his pulpit ability, prepared a sermon on this text. 
The subject was in the line of his work, and led away 
by the phrase labourers together with God , lie empha¬ 
sized the dignity of the ministerial calling. It was 
a favorite sermon and met with great favor among 
his ministerial brethren as well as among laymen. 
But when his interpretation of the text was called in 
question, by a friend, he expressed surprise, and said 
he would re-examine the text. The result was that 
he never preached the sermon again. 


54 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


I. Coe. xiii: 13. And now dbideih faith, hope, char¬ 
ity, these three; hut the greatest of these is charity . 

For excellence of style, and terseness of expression, 
few chapters in the Bible excel this thirteenth of 
First Corinthians. Although remarkable for its 
plainness and simplicity, yet each paragraph deserves 
study for the sake of a correct apprehension of the 
whole. But to confine our attention to the text, most 
unfortunately, the word charity is employed to ren¬ 
der the Greek term agape. In the time of the trans¬ 
lators this may have been justifiable, since the word 
might have meant in common usage, the grace of love, 
as it does not now. Tyndale 1525-6 translated love, 
and was followed by Cranmer 1539 and by the Gen¬ 
evan Bible 1557. The Bishop’s Bible 1568 rendered 
charity, and was followed by the Authorized version 
1611. 

The word a gap e according to Robinson’s Greek 
Lex. of N. T., is not found in Greek writers. In the 
New Testament, with but one exception, the word is 
used to express God’s love to Christ, and to man; also 
the love of believers to God, as a duty. “Hence love 
in general, holy love, without a definite object,” as in 
our text. New Testament Greek is happy in posses¬ 
sing a single term expressive of this love existing be¬ 
tween man and his God. The English language is 
poor in not having a word to correspond with this. 
In common usage our word love carries with it a 
sensuous element; and yet in the language of Canaan 
it is sanctified and so elevated to a spiritual use that 


MISTRANSLA TED 


55 


it means a holy principle of the heart, an abiding 
Christian grace. With this change of the word char¬ 
ity for that of love, our text is relieved, and the whole 
chapter as well. And in this, the Revised version 
comes to the help of the English reader, by returning 
to Tyndale and rendering the Greek term love in the 
sense above indicated. 

Again to understand the teaching of the text, we 
must inquire the meaning of the words and now. 
Some think that the Apostle meant by the word now 
the present age, and that he is to be understood as 
saying, that the graces, faith, hope and love would 
abide so long as time should last, in contrast to the 
gifts spoken of above, which having served their pur¬ 
pose should cease. Also by the phrase the greatest of 
these is love, the Apostle is to be understood, also, as 
teaching that the graces of faith and hope, having 
fulfilled their offices in the work of salvation, should 
cease, and that the grace of love only would continue. 
This is the popular but a wrong understanding of the 
text. Accordingly faith is to be “ swallowed up in 
sight,” and hope is to end in “ glad fruition.” This 
misinterpretation has become the more popular by 
such hymnal teaching as; 

“ Hope shall change to glad fruition,— 

Faith to sight, and prayer to praise.” 

— Montgomery. 

Again: 

“ When faith is sweetly lost in sight, 

And hope in full supreme delight, 

And everlasting love.” 

—Charles Wesley. 


56 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Isaac Watts in praising the grace of love, sings; 

“ This is the grace that lives and sings, 

When faith and hope shall cease; 

’Tis this shall strike onr joyful strings, 

In the sweet realms of bliss.” 

But all this is most contrary to the teaching of the 
Apostle, since he distinctly declares that these three 
shall abide. Then, the words and now are to be un¬ 
derstood not as referring to the present age, but sim¬ 
ply as connecting what has gone before with what is 
to follow. And now, he says, these three graces are 
to abide; and immediately adds: the greatest of these 
is love. He certainly attributes here a certain super¬ 
iority to the grace of love, but not by reason of its 
possessing an essential element of continuance beyond 
that of the other two. For, they are all mutually de¬ 
pendent. Faith works by love, therefore where no 
love is there can be no faith. Love is grounded on 
faith, so where there is no foundation, there can be no 
superstructure; in other words, where there is no con¬ 
fidence there can be no love. So likewise, where the 
light of hope is not, there can be neither faith nor 
love. By assigning priority to love, no violence is 
done to the other two graces. Mutually dependent, 
they are mutually efficient. In whatever sense the 
grace of love exceeds the others, such excess but adds 
to the glory of them all. Something of the superex¬ 
cellence of this one grace is seen in that faith and 
hope pertain to ourselves, while love goes out for 
others. It may seem hard to give up this long cher¬ 
ished understanding of this text enforced as it has 


MISTRANSLATED 


57 


been by the teachings of such sacred hymns as the 
above; but the Apostle’s meaning is plain, and our 
judgment must approve the logical inference that 
these graces are essential to the well being of the soul 
whether in this world or that which is to come. 

Hebrews iv:8. For if Jesus had given them rest , 
then would he not afterward have spoken of another 
day. 

9. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people 
of God. 

While the conclusion of the Apostle in this chap¬ 
ter in regard to a Sabbath rest, may be readily under¬ 
stood, yet to follow the argument step by step, is 
more or less difficult. He who understands the word 
Jesus , in verse 8, in its ordinary meaning, will be led 
entirely astray. The correct word “ Joshua ” is placed 
in the margin, but it ought to have found a place in 
the text and thus would have avoided confusion. 
Though familiar with the fact, that Jesus is the Greek 
form of the Hebrew word Joshua , yet in ordinary 
reading, no one thinks that the “ son of Nun ” is here 
intended. Of course our translators knew, but why 
they should have placed the word Jesus in the text 
and thus introduced serious ambiguity, is difficult to 
determine. There is a similar occasion of obscurity 
in Acts vii:45. 

The earlier English versions have, Josue , i. e. 
Joshua but our version, as in the text, followed the 
Rheims which has, Jesus. The Syriac Peshito ver- 


58 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


sion, Murdock’s translation , reads; Joshua , the son 
of Nun. The Kevised version translates; For if 
Joshua had given them rest , he would not have 
spoken afterward of another day. There remaineth 
therefore a sabbath rest for the people of God. 

The correct interpretation then seems to be; If 
Joshua had given the Israelites all the rest that was 
implied in the words my rest; God would not after - 
ward i. e. in the time of David, have spoken of an¬ 
other day, and said; Today if ye will hear his 
voice , harden not your hearts. By which we under¬ 
stand, if the promise had not been open to the people, 
in the days of David, then God would not have 
warned them against the disobedience of their fa¬ 
thers; and the consequent danger of coming short 
of His promised rest. This rest then, was promised 
to the people in the time of Joshua, also in the time 
of David; so the Apostle could say as in the next 
verse, to the people of his own time, and through 
them, to the true Israel of all ages; There remaineth 
therefore a rest to the people of God. 

It is somewhat remarkable that the Greek word in 
this ninth verse is changed from hat epausen 
which means rest , to sabbatismos which means a 
keeping of Sabbath. This latter term, Kobinson in 
his Greek Lex. says; “is used in the N. T., only of 
our eternal rest with God.” Bengal after calling at¬ 
tention to this change in the Greek, remarks: “In 
time there are many sabbaths; but then there will be 
the enjoyment of rest, one, perfect, eternal, The 


MISTRANSLATED 


59 


verbal noun is emphatic.” Alford translates these 
verses; For if Joshua had given them rest, then 
would he (God) not afterward speak of another 
day. There is yet reserved therefore a keeping of 
sabbath for the people of God. In his comments, he 
says: “The term ( keeping of sabbath) is used here 
to correspond to ‘ my rest? specified and explained in 
verse four. God’s rest was a keeping of sabbath: so 
also will ours be.” 

While the whole chapter deserves special study, 
yet as intimated, the conclusion of the Apostle is 
easily reached. The interpretation as given above 
harmonizes with the Apostles’ exhortation in verse 
11, which reads in the Revised version 1881; Let us 
therefore give diligence to enter into that rest, that no 
man fall after the same example of disobedience. 

Hebrews x : 23. Let us hold fast the profession of 
our faith without wavering; (for he is faithful 
that promised .) 

Unless familar with the Greek, no one would ever 
suspect that there was anything out of the way in 
the translation of this passage. In its every word it 
seems in harmony with the context, and yet the 
original reads; Let us holdfast the confession of our 
hope. The introduction of the word faith in this 
text, can hardly be called a mistranslation, but must 
be looked upon as a serious oversight, a grievous 
mistake. This will appear by turning to several 
Greek texts of the New Testament, where invaribly 


60 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


the word is hope, not faith. According to Bagster’s 
English Hexapla, all the other English versions ex¬ 
cept the Authorized, read; hope instead of faith. 
The case is so remarkable that the Editor observes 
in his preface, p. 58; “In this passage our author¬ 
ised version has faith where the other five transla¬ 
tions have hope: the original shows at once that 
hope is the right word. It is quite inexplicable how 
the word faith was introduced into this passage: it 
changes the whole exhortation.” Besides the ver¬ 
sions given in the Hexapla, the Bishop’s Bible 1568 
which was the basis of the Authorized version, reads 
correctly; Lette us holde the profession of the hope, 
without wciuering, {for he is faithful that promised.) 

While as intimated above, the word faith so har¬ 
monizes with the context, that it awakens no sus¬ 
picion of wrong, yet as the editor of the Hexapla 
remarks; “ It changes the whole meaning of the ex¬ 
hortation.” So Alford, “ The word ‘faith? given 
here by the A. V., instead of hope —breaking up 
the beautiful triad of vv. 22, 23, 24.—faith, hope, 
love, was a mere mistake, hope being the original, 
without any variety of reading.” The Revised ver¬ 
sion 1881 translates; Let us holdfast the confession of 
our hope that it leaver not; for he is faithful that 
promised. 

Hebrews xii: 2. Looking unto Jesus the author 
and finisher of our faith . 

The Greek term archegon is variously rendered 




MISTRANSLA TED 


61 


by the translators of the Authorized version. In our 
text it is translated author while the alternative ren¬ 
dering “ beginner ” is placed in the margin. For 
the sake of the connection the latter is preferable. 
In Heb. ii: 10, the same word is translated captain, 
where the word author would have been more in 
harmony with the context. The Revised version so 
renders it. Bengel translates the word in our text 
chief, and remarks; “By this title Jesus is distin¬ 
guished from all those enumerated in ch. xi. He 
himself is the only example, the only rule and stand¬ 
ard of faith.” Meyer translates, Beginner and 
says; “Not only the example of the O. T. witnesses 
for the faith, but also the example of the Beginner 
and Perfecter of the faith, Christ Himself must ani¬ 
mate us.” Alford prefers to translate, author and 
finds in it a greater depth of meaning and explains; 
“ His going before us in faith has made faith pos¬ 
sible for us: His perfecting faith in liis own person 
and example has made faith effectual for us.” This 
is true, but is it the truth demanded by this connec¬ 
tion? So far as Jesus is represented a3 the author 
of faith and consequently of salvation, we may wor¬ 
ship Him, but not imitate His example. As the be¬ 
ginner, however, and the perfecter of faith in His own 
person, he becomes our leader and chief, and we may 
look to Him and be encouraged by His example. So 
the next verse exhorts; For consider him that en¬ 
dured such contradiction of sinners against himself, 
lest ye be wearied and faint in your minds. 

Certainly the rendering of the whole phrase, the 


62 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


author and finisher of our faith, as in the text, 
is objectionable. It limits the meaning to the faith 
of the believer, and thus detracts from the sense of 
the passage in its connection. Says Barnes; “ The 
expression then, does not mean properly that he pro¬ 
duces faith in us . . . but that he stands at the 

head as the most eminent example ... on the 
subject of faith.” Even Alford who prefers the ren¬ 
dering author fearing lest this little word “ our ” in 
connection with author, should carry the thought too 
far, adds; “The ascription of faith to our Lord is 
so plain in our Epistle, ch. ii. 13; iii. 2, that we 
must not seem to exclude this sense in our ren¬ 
dering which we certainly do by our faith” 

Unfortunately the Revised version of 1881 trans¬ 
lates the phrase; the author and perfecter of our 
faith. By such rendering the obscurity of the pas¬ 
sage is continued, and the encouragement from so 
gracious a motive as the example of Jesus is almost 
wholly lost. But leave out the “ our,” and substi¬ 
tute “ beginner,” for author, and the text is brought 
into harmony with the context, and the motive re¬ 
claimed. Many Christians complain of a lack of faith, 
with no remedy at hand. They seem not to know 
that there is an eleventh chapter of Hebrews. And 
while the contents of this twelfth chapter is partially 
remembered as being very precious, yet evidently 
they have never quite understood that Jesus was set 
before them in our text as a perfect example of faith, 
lest they should become weary and faint in their 
minds. 


MISTRANSLA TED 


63 


I John iii: 2. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, 
and it doth not yet appear what we shall he: hut we 
know that, when he shall appear, we shall he like 
him; for we shall see him as he is. 

The correct understanding of this verse depends 
upon whether the word he or it shall be supplied to 
the verb shall appear. Our Authorized version fol¬ 
lows the Genevan Bible 1557 and supplies, he. The 
Revised version 1881 reads, he and places the word 
“ it ” in the margin. Tyndale 1525-6, 1534 without 
hesitation translates; when it shall appere. He is 
followed by Cranmer’s Bible 1539. Alford supplies 
it, and reads; and it never yet was manifested what we 
shall he. Bengel and Lange supply it. The weight 
of modern authority favors the word it. 

As a rule those who translate; When he shall ap¬ 
pear, understand the word he to refer to Christ. (See 
Bloomfield, Scott and Barnes.) On the other hand, 
those who translate; when it shall appear, understand 
the word it to refer to what we shall he, and think 
the supplying of the word it most needful, to bring 
out the meaning of the verse, and to carry out the 
thought of the passage. In its connection therefore, 
the sense of this second verse is; Through the Fa¬ 
ther’s love we are now His children. What the future 
of this childship shall be, hath not yet been made 
manifest. But when it shall be made manifest; when 
the what is now, shall be swallowed up in the 
what shall he, then, the children of God in their 
resurrection bodies, shall become like the Father, and 
shall see Him as He is. This unspeakable realiza- 


64 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


tion, until realized, becomes an object of hope. So 
the very next verse says; And every man that hath 
this hope in him purijieth himself, even as he is pure . 

The words, ichen it shall he manifested are para¬ 
phrased in Lange, Schaffs edition; “ When the mys¬ 
tery of our future being is unveiled, this is what 
shall be disclosed: we shall he like Him, whatever 
of glory and blessedness that involves.” Alford in 
expounding the words, we shall see Him as He is, 
says; “ So that the full and perfect accomplishment 
of this knowledge in the actual fruition of God Him¬ 
self must of necessity bring with it likeness to God.” 

Meyer in commenting on this same phrase remarks; 
“ The certain hope of the Christian is that he shall 
see God. In that hope there lies for him the cer¬ 
tainty that he will one day be like God; for God can 
only be seen by him who is like Him.” 

Rev. x:6. And sware hy him that liveth forever 
and ever, who created heaven, and the things that 
therein are, and the earth, and the things that 
therein are, and the sea, and the things which are 
therein, that there should he time no longer: 

7. Bid in the days of the voice of the seventh 
angel, when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of 
God should he finished, as he hath declared to his 
servants the prophets. 

By many the Apocalypse is regarded as a sealed 
book. But instead, it is a book of broken seals, of 
unstopped vials, or rather, open bowls, and of myste- 


MISTRANSLA TED 


65 


ries revealed. In the first chapter a blessing is 
promised to those who hear this prophecy and keep 
the things written therein. This blessing is attained 
and attainable by the unlearned as well as the learned. 
In some respects ordinary readers have the advan¬ 
tage, in that they accept the truths revealed without 
any preconceived theories of interpretation. In the 
visions of the seer, our horizon is extended. Through 
the clouds and storms of earth’s conflicts as portrayed 
in these visions, we may all see the blue sky beyond. 
True in this book of the New Testament, as well as in 
the Prophetic books of the Old Testament, there are 
things hard to be understood; yet its lessons of 
prophecy and promise are for the encouragement of 
believers in all ages of the world. 

But our attention is especially called here to the 
mistranslation of the last clause of verse 6. Words 
are real, and they convey definite ideas in accordance 
with their accepted meanings. When therefore we 
read the solemn declaration that there should he time 
no longer, we understand the phrase to mean, the end 
of time and the beginning of eternity. But that 
the words are ambiguous and misleading because 
mistranslated, we have abundant testimony. Alford 
translates; that there shall he delay no longer. In 
his comments he says; “ Time shall no longer inter¬ 
vene: the appointed delay is at an end.” As a matter of 
interpretation, the American editor of Lange virtu¬ 
ally agrees with Alford,“ that the chronos is that of 
chap, viill.” In this same connection he remarks; 


66 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


“ The season referred to, manifestly, was that of 
world domination—to be followed by the avenging of 
the martyrs.” Elliott in his Hor ce Apocalypticce 
remarks; “ The Authorized version of it (that is, this 
clause), is one clearly inadmissible.” His transla¬ 
tion is; There shall he time no longer extended; that 
is, as he explains; “ to the mysterious dispensation of 
God which has so far permitted the reign of evil 
. . . the seventh trumpet’s sera being its fixt de¬ 

termined limit.” Hengstenberg says; “ Time, here, 
is as much as delay. The more exact import is given 
in ver. 7. From that we learn that a delay is meant.” 
Other authorities might be cited, but these will suffice. 

It is noticeable that while there is a difference in 
the critical and so far supposed exact wording of 
these several translations, yet the interpreters agree 
substantially as to the meaning of the word time 
in this connection; that “it is not used in its ab¬ 
stract sense as opposed to eternity.” Like other 
texts this is dependent upon its connection for the 
right understanding of its meaning. It must be, 
therefore, that the clause does not mean that time 
shall end and eternity begin, since the succeeding 
verse, which is really a continuance of the sentence, 
distinctly says, as rendered by the Revised version; 
but in the days of the voice of the seventh angel , when 
he is about to sound , then is finished the mystery of 
God, according to the good tidings which he declared 
to his servants the prophets. The mysterious dis¬ 
pensation, concerning which martyrs cried, How 


MISTRANSLATED 


G7 


long, O Lord, holy and true, dost Thou not judge 
and avenge our blood on them that dwell on the 
earth? shall cease according to the proclamation of 
the angel, that there should be delay no longer. 
When, therefore, the seventh angel shall sound, then 
the prayers of the martyrs shall be answered, and 
God will accomplish His purposes of mercy towards 
His persecuted and patient Church. Says Meyer in 
loco; “The contextual determination of this idea 
. . . lies partly in the fact that its actual fulfil¬ 

ment is placed in the time of the seventh, and conse¬ 
quently the last, trumpet; partly in that its revela¬ 
tion is conceived of by the prophets as a euaggeli- 
zein, i. e., a communication of a joyful message.” 




Part II. 

Misinterpretations. 


“ He is the best reader (of the Bible) who rather expects to 
obtain sense from the words, than impose it upon them, and 
who carries more away than he has brought, nor forces that 
upon the words which he had resolved to understand before he 
began to read.”— Hilary in bis book De Trinitate . 


Part II 


Familiar Bible Texts 

Misused on account of being Misinterpreted. 

Genesis ix:6. Whoso sheddeth man's blood, by 
man shall his blood be shed: for in the image of 
God made he man. 

Many are misled in their interpretation of this 
verse by failing to consider the last clause, which 
reads; for in the image of God made he man. This 
clause lifts the command to a higher plane than that 
of human authority. The murderous assault against 
the image of God in man becomes an offense so 
rank, that in the judgment of Jehovah nothing 
short of the life of the offender will suffice. Herein 
is a divine ordinance with an extraordinary reason 
given for its enactment and enforcement. Guilt 
proved, God fixes the penalty. The magistrate is 
clothed with authority to pronounce the sentence, 
and to order its execution, whether he approves or 
disapproves. Legislatures may ignore this divine 
standard, and enact laws apparently more humane, 
but they do so in the face of this higher law; and 
consecpiently in despite the authority of God. Says 
Calvin; “ Men are indeed unworthy of God’s care, if 
respect be had only to themselves; but since they 
71 


72 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


bear the image of God engraven on them, He deems 
Himself violated in their person.” If the reason here 
given for the enforcement of this command were bet¬ 
ter understood, a higher estimate would be put upon 
human life, and murderous assaults would be less 
frequent. 

But further, this divine ordinance finds its counter¬ 
part in the innate moral nature of man. Where 
there are no legal, enactments, this unwritten law 
speaks with authority, and demands the forfeited life 
of the murderer. Society once organized, surrenders 
this right into the hands of the magistrate, but de¬ 
mands its fulfilment. By such demand, society pro¬ 
tests its innocence, and washes its hands from guilt. 
Says Prof. Tayler Lewis, in Lange’s Commentary ; 
“ In no other way can the community itself escape 
the awful responsibility. Blood rests upon it. Im¬ 
punity makes the whole land guilty.” Nothing short 
of the execution of the penalty will satisfy this innate 
demand. Society not only thus frees itself from the 
taint of guilt, but also protects itself from further 
crimes. The law therefore is safe, satisfactory, and 
good. It stands for the honor of God and for the 
safety of man. 

Not a few by failing to consider the second clause 
of this verse, and by allowing their feelings to con¬ 
trol, are ready to dismiss this command by declaring 
it to be simply a Jewish precept, thus doing away 
with its universality. But the passage itself in the 
time and place of its utterance, easily refutes any such 


MISINTERPRETED 


73 


view. Given to Noah and through him to his poster¬ 
ity, this ordinance bears upon its face divine au¬ 
thority and universal intention. Says Blackstone; 
“ Capital punishment is inflicted by the immediate 
command of God himself to all mankind as in the 
case of murder, by the precept delivered to Noah, 
their common ancestor and representative, 4 whoso 
sheddeth man’s blood by man shall his blood be 
shed.’ ” 

For the sake of doing away with the authority of 
this passage as a command, there are those who think 
to interpret it simply as a prediction. This, how¬ 
ever, can be done only by assuming that the predic¬ 
tion is based upon the will of God. But such as¬ 
sumption is fatal to the claim, since, instead of doing 
away with the command it establishes it. 

Speaking of the prejudice of modern humanitarian- 
ism against the death penalty on account of its abuse, 
Lange says; “Yet still, a divine ordinance may not 
be set aside by our prejudices. It needs only to be 
rightly understood according to its own limitation 
and idea. The fundamental principle for all time is 
this, that the murderer, through his own act and deed, 
has forfeited his right in human society, and incurred 
the doom of death.” 

Psalm xxxii:8. I will instruct thee and teach 
thee in the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee 
with mine eye. 

In this single text we have an illustration of both a 


74 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


mistranslation and a misinterpretation. Dr. Alexan¬ 
der translates the second clause; I will counsel thee , 
my eye (shall he) upon thee. The Kevised version 
reads; I icill counsel thee with mine eye upon thee. 
By these renderings the meaning is readily under¬ 
stood, which can hardly be said of the reading in our 
text. The obscurity involved in the words, I will 
guide thee with mine eye , seems to grow more ob¬ 
scure in our attempt to explain it away. 

But a serious misinterpretation of this whole pas¬ 
sage, arises from the custom of almost all English 
readers of attributing to God these words which 
doubtless ought to be ascribed to David. Dr. Alex¬ 
ander in commenting on this passage, says it is a 
“gratuitous assumption,” that there should be “ two 
different speakers in the two successive verses, with¬ 
out anything to indicate a change.” Further he adds; 
“ it is altogether probable that David is here speak¬ 
ing in his own person and fulfilling the vow recorded 
in another place, that when forgiven and restored to 
communion with God, he would teach transgressors 
his ways. See Ps. li: 13. He may therefore be con¬ 
sidered as addressing another like himself—to wit, a 
godly person—overtaken in transgression or exposed to 
strong temptation—and offering to point out to him 
the path of safety.” With this understanding, the 
interpretation of the second clause seems easier in 
that it carries with it the additional idea of personal 
watchfulness. 

It is noticeable that through this misinterpretation, 


MISINTERPRETED 


75 


our passage is treasured up by many Christians as a 
precious promise of God’s special guidance. We 
may confess to a sense of deprivation in being forced 
to give up the passage; and yet no amount of feeling 
based upon a false interpretation can justify our 
holding on to it. Then, in this seeming loss, there 
may be a possible gain. The wholesome truth of 
God’s continual guidance, abounds in prophecy and 
promise throughout the Bible. Ps. lxxiii:24, reads; 
Thou shalt guide me with thy counsel. See also 
Ps. xxv: 9., xlviii: 14, Is. lviii: 11, John xvi: 13. But 
this truth of Christian watchfulness, the importance 
of which cannot be overestimated, is not so common 
at least in the Old Testament. Calvin in loco, 
magnifies the importance of the teaching of 
this verse, when he says; “ We may also learn 
from this place, that we are reconciled to God upon 
condition that every man endeavour to make his breth¬ 
ren partakers of the same benefit. David, the more 
strongly to mark his care about them, describes it by 
the sight of the eye. By the way it should be ob¬ 
served, that those who are solicitous about our wel¬ 
fare are appointed by the Lord as guides of our way.” 

David in his gratitude for forgiveness, promises 
under God not only to instruct but by personal sym¬ 
pathy and watchfulness to guide a penitent brother. 
If this be the correct interpretation, then we do not 
honor God by ascribing to Him the words of David. 
Besides to insist in so doing upon what is at least a 
doubtful interpretation, secures only a doubtful prom- 


76 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


ise. But God’s promises are yea and amen. If 
therefore we are called to give up this seemingly pre¬ 
cious promise, as a matter of private feeling, much 
more so, ought we, in all honesty, to give it up in our 
public teaching. Especially ought all leaders of 
young people’s meetings to hesitate before announc¬ 
ing the very popular hymn, which is founded on the 
misinterpretation of this passage, the first stanza of 
which reads; 

“ Precious promise God hath given 
To the weary passer-by, 

On the way from earth to heaven, 

‘I will guide thee with mine eye.’ ” 

Psalm cxxvii:2. It is vain for you to rise up 
early , to sit up late , to eat the bread of sorrows: for 
so he givetli his beloved sleep. 

The trouble in this passage is with the word sleep , 
the last word of the last clause. It is commonly un¬ 
derstood to be used here in the figurative sense of 
death. A sense which is justified in the Scriptures. 
We have a beautiful example in the words of Jesufi 
when He said; Our friend Lazarus sleepeth; . . . 

Howbeit Jesus spake of his death: but they thought 
that he had spoken of taking of rest in sleep. Bengel, 
beautifully, remarks on these words; “Death is the 
sleep of the pious in the language of heaven.” This 
usage, however is highly figurative, and quite un¬ 
common. Almost always the word sleep is used in 
the Scriptures in its plain sense. 


MISINTERPRETED 


77 


A most important rule in interpretation is, that, the 
meaning of a word is determined by its connection. 
In this whole Psalm, there is no reference whatever 
to death. All is life and activity. The burden of 
the Psalm is the vanity of life struggles in building 
the house, in guarding the city, in rising up early, in 
sitting up late, excepting where the providence of 
God is cheerfully recognized. The merely worldly 
man, in his anxiety for success in life, may cheat 
himself of required rest in sleep, and whether for the 
time he is successful or not, he is without God’s sup¬ 
port and promise. But the Christian in his daily 
struggles, has the blessed assurance, for so he giveth 
his beloved sleep. 

It is almost incomprehensible how this false inter¬ 
pretation could become so general in the minds and 
hearts of intelligent Christians, when the text and 
context are so pronounced in fixing the right mean¬ 
ing of the word. 

Some years ago, an aged minister, and lifelong 
friend, called to obtain the exact wording of this 
clause from the Latin Vulgate. He wished to place 
it as an inscription on the tombstone of his daughter. 
I had no heart to tell him that the inscription would 
be inappropriate; and in the sense that he intended, a 
misuse of the text. 

A daily paper, recently, in giving an account of the 
services at a funeral, stated; that “A solo was sung 
entitled, ‘ He giveth his beloved sleep.’ ” There is an 
anthem lying before me, with the same title, and 


78 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


possibly by the same author, the last stanza of which 
reads; 

“In childhood’s winsome page, 

In manhood’s joyous bloom; 

In feebleness and age, 

In death’s dark gathering gloom: 

God doth His own in safety keep, 

‘ He giveth His beloved sleep. * ” 

Evidently song writers, and song singers, as well as 
others, need to guard against the misuse of familiar 
Bible texts. 

Ecc. xi: 3. If the clouds he full of rain, they empty 
themselves upon the earth: and if the tree fall toward 
the soidh, or toward the north, in the place where 
the tree falleth, there it shall he. 

If the commonly accepted interpretation of the 
latter clause of this verse is applicable and forceful, 
it may be asked; “Why seek for another explana¬ 
tion? ” In the figurative language of the Scriptures, 
trees represent men. Is it not natural then that the 
fall of a tree should symbolize the death of a man? 
and the fixedness of the place should indicate that 
physical death does not change moral character? 
These questions are natural and are in line with the 
views of the old commentators. Matthew Henry, 
almost two hundred years ago wrote: “This (i. e., 
the falling of the tree), is commonly applied to death; 
therefore let us do good, . . . because death will 

shortly come, and cut us down, and we shall then be 


MISINTERPRETED 


79 


determined to an unchangeable state.” In Scott’s 
Commentary, we read; “And as the tree continues 
where it fell; so will men abide in that state in which 
death leaves them.” 

The above truth is eminently Scriptural; but from 
the context it is not the teaching intended here. 
There are some six verses of the chapter which are 
closely connected, and form one paragraph. The first 
verse introduces the dominant thought, and it reads; 
Cast thy bread upon the waters: for thou shalt find it 
after many days. The purpose of the Preacher in 
this and the following verses seems to be to encour¬ 
age acts of beneficence. Practically, in dispensing 
charitable gifts, there is an element of uncertainty. 
This is recognized in the first clause of the first 
verse. But that it is largely a seeming uncertainty, 
the Preacher adds, for thou shalt find it after many 
days. Find what? Surely not the bread, for this 
was given without expectation of return; but rather 
the evidence of good that it would accomplish. In 
the next verse, the Preacher exhorts, notwithstand¬ 
ing this uncertainty, to give liberally. Don’t stop 
with seven but give a portion also to eight. In the 
next verse, which is our text, the Preacher would have 
us learn a lesson from the rain. Before the little 
drops leave the clouds, there is uncertainty as to 
any good they may accomplish. They may fall upon 
rocky places, or be swallowed up in lakes or rivers; 
yet it is these drops that enrich and make green the 
earth. So it is in the falling of the tree. The trunk 


80 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


becomes dry and bard. After many days it decays and 
becomes worthless, yet in its worthlessness, it enriches 
the ground upon which it falls. The interpretation 
is easy. Our gifts like the fallen tree may seem 
worthless, whether they fall to the southward or the 
northward, on good or poor ground, yet they so enrich 
the hearts of those who receive them that flowers of 
joy and gratitude spring up. 

The next and fourth verse keeps up the dominant 
thought and indicates the important lesson, that he 
who allows himself to be influenced by this seeming 
uncertainty, by observing the wind and the clouds, 
will neither sow nor reap. Hence in the sixth and 
last verse of the paragraph, the exhortation is; sow 
in the morning, and withhold not thy hand in the 
evening, for thou knowest not which shall prosper. 

This passage has been variously interpreted. Lange 
apparently approaches nearest to the meaning, by 
agreeing with those who explain the text in its con¬ 
nection; that it matters not upon whose ground the 
tree falls, “if it does not profit the one, it does the 
other. And it is just so with the gifts of love; their 
fruit is not lost.” It is sufficient to note that Moses 
Stuart in common at least with one critic before 
him, finds in this passage a warning against inevit¬ 
able evils, instead of encouragement of future 
good. It is hardly necessary to state that in view of 
the plain teaching of these several verses, in their 
connection with the first verse, that such explana¬ 
tion is unsatisfactory. And yet Professor Stuart’s 


MISINTERPRETED 


81 


exposition is eminently critical and worthy of con¬ 
sideration. 

Isaiah xxirll. The burden of Dumah. Hecalleth 
to me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? 
Watchman, what of the night? 

12. The watchman said, The morning cometh, and 
also the night: if ye will enquire, enquire ye: return, 
come . 

We have in these verses a remarkable instance in 
which a celebrated hymn, noted for its excellence 
and wide popularity, fixes upon this prophecy, a 
false interpretation. The first stanza reads; 

“ Watchman! tell ns of the night, 

What its signs of promise are? 

Traveler! o’er yon moutain height! 

See that glory=beaming star: 

Watchman! does its beauteous ray 
Aught of hope or joy foretell? 

Traveler! yes; — it brings the day, — 

Promised day of Israel.” 

This hymn is Messianic, glowing with the “ bless¬ 
edness and light” of Old Testament promise and 
New Testament fulfilment. All of which is foreign 
to a correct exposition of this prophecy. Again our 
passage is a favorite basis for missionary sermons, 
which are inspired and made to glow with Gospel 
light which “ bursts o’er all the earth.” Then again 
these verses by a false accommodation are made to 
stand at the head of sermons on the “ Signs of the 
Times,” in which the spirit of the hymn is followed 
rather than the exegesis of the passage. 


82 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


There is a commonly accepted explanation of this 
prophecy based in part upon the historical facts con¬ 
nected with it, which is as follows; The Edomites 
who were the descendants of Esau and so related to 
the Israelites, yet they were their most inveterate 
enemies. The indignation of the Jews against 
the Edomites is expressed in Ps. cxxxvii: 7, Remem¬ 
ber, O Lord, the children of Edom in the day of 
Jerusalem; who said, Rase it, rase it, even to the 
foundation thereof. Edom was in deep darkness, 
but her condition at this time was preferable to that 
of Jerusalem as she was desolate, her people being in 
captivity. Hence the Edomite in the spirit of 
pride is supposed to taunt the prophet with the in¬ 
quiry, What of the night? The prophet takes no 
notice of the taunt, but truthfully answers, first in re¬ 
spect to the Israelites in their captivity; The morn¬ 
ing cometh. Then in respect to the Edomites, he 
adds; And also the night: if ye will enquire, en¬ 
quire ye: return, come. While to the prophetic vis¬ 
ion of Isaiah, Edom is encompassed in darkness yet 
there is hope if she will repent. 

Probably a more correct interpretation of this 
short and somewhat difficult prophecy is, to regard 
the cry out of Edom as an honest cry; also to con¬ 
fine the answers, to the future of the Edomites. 
Anxious for the morning, out of the depths comes 
the cry, Watchman, ivhat of the night? From his 
watch tower, the prophet turns his eye towards the 
east. He sees a ray of light, but suddenly it is ob- 


MISINTERPRETED 


83 


scured by the darkness. Hence his answer; The 
morning cometh and also the night. And so the 
history of ilbfated Edom proved. Says Delitzsch; 
“ Again and again there was a glimmer of morning 
for Edom (and what a glimmer in the Herodian 
age!) but it was swallowed up directly by another 
night, until Edom became an utter Dumah and disap¬ 
peared from the history of nations.” While in the 
vision there was little or no encouragement for Edom, 
yet the watchman in the spirit of a true prophet, 
adds; If ye will enquire, enquire ye: return, come. 
That is, if you are in earnest in seeking an answer 
from Jehovah, and will repent, come to me again. 
But they failed to return as their future history 
shows. This prophecy is not without its difficulties 
but this latter explanation seems preferable on ac¬ 
count of its simplicity. 

Isaiah lxiii:1. Who is this that cometh from 
Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is 
glorious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness oj 
his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty 
to save. 

An intellegent Bible reader once said in my hear¬ 
ing; “The language of this prophecy is very beauti¬ 
ful, I like to read it.” Upon inquiry I found that 
this same reader, like thousands of others, by a false 
interpretation, made the prophecy to mean the very 
opposite from what was intended. The common in¬ 
terpretation is, that it refers to Christ in His sacrificial 


84 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


work of redemption. The familiar phrases of the 
prophecy, so often quoted, such as; Mighty to save , 
last clause of the text; I have trodden the wine'press 
alone, first clause of verse 3; Therefore mine own 
arm brought salvation, third clause of verse 5; these 
all seem so befitting and appropriate, that it is quite 
natural to ascribe them to Christ in His work of re¬ 
demption. This is doubtless true if these phrases 
are taken separately. But not so if the chapter is 
read carefully, and the phrases interpreted by their 
immediate connection. For whosoever this is that 
comethfrom Edom, with dyed garments from Bozrah; 
he comes to execute a work of wrath, instead of mer¬ 
cy; his garments are sprinkled with blood, but it is 
the blood of his enemies, not his own. It was their 
blood that made red his garments. His own arm 
brought salvation, but it was the arm of the conquer¬ 
or stretched out in fury. I will bring doivn their 
strength to the earth. He is mighty to save, that is, 
by his power and purpose to destroy his enemies. 

The vision was very striking, the language 
dramatic, combined they must have appealed to the 
imagination, as well as the judgment, of the Israelites. 
The Edomites were deadly enemies of the chosen 
people of God. They not only warred against Israel 
but incited other nations to do the same. Because of 
this, the intent of the vision is to foreshadow the 
final overthrow of the Edomites; and above all to 
teach the people that Jehovah must be recognized as 
their Deliverer. At the time of this prophecy, the 


MISINTERPRETED 


85 


Edomites were a flourishing people. Yet the vision 
by way of encouragement, represents Edom as already 
destroyed. If the above be correct, then the vision 
pictures forth none o ther than Jehovah, as the person 
coming from Edom travelling in the greatness of his 
strength. 

Even in Calvin’s time, this passage was sadly mis¬ 
interpreted. He says; “ This chapter has been violent¬ 
ly distorted by Christians, as if what is said here re¬ 
lated to Christ, whereas the prophet speaks simply of 
God himself. ” Delitzsch in substance says; The 
person approaching speaks in righteousness, this 
alone might lead us to surmise that it is God that 
speaks. Again he adds in this connection, that the 
Seer was at first in doubt, but at last, by the answers 
he received, the enigma was explained. “ This heroic 
figure* was Jehovah Himself. ” 

The vision thus understood is plain, and was adapted 
to the wants of the Israelites at the time. And 
while the prophecy cannot without violence be made 
to refer to Christ, who in His humility came to suffer 
and to save; yet it may be read and pondered with 
profit by Christians of to-day. There are those who 
in their bitterness cry out against the Christian 
Church as did the Edomites against Jerusalem, say¬ 
ing; Base it, rase it. The people of God therefore 
need the encouragement of this vision, that the 
strong arm of Jehovah is still stretched out for their 
defense. They need to heed the lesson also that 
Jehovah must be recognized as the Deliverer of His 


86 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


people, not only in the old, but also in the new dis¬ 
pensation. The counterpart of this passage of Isaiah, 
is found in Key. xix. “ The vision of John ” says 
Delitzsch, “ is evidently formed upon the basis of that 
of Isaiah; for when it is said of the Logos that He rules 
the nations with a staff of iron, this points to Ps. ii; 
and when it is still further said that He treads the 
wine-press of the wrath of Almighty God, this points 
back to Is. lxiii.” The Christ therefore of the New 
Testament may be read into our chapter not as the 
suffering Savior but as the triumphant Redeemer. 

Matthew v: 39. But I say unto you , That ye 
resist not evil: hut whosoever shall smite thee on thy 
right cheek , turn to him the other also. 

Many understand this precept by too literal an 
interpretation. They mistake the husk for the ker¬ 
nel, the letter for the spirit. To all such this teaching 
is impracticable, because its requirements seem out¬ 
side of the range of common sense and every day life. 
Literal obedience in their judgment would be taken 
as an evidence of weakness and cowardice. By such 
understanding the precept is robbed of its meaning 
and moral power. But in this as well as in all His 
sayings, Christ would make men courageous, and vic¬ 
torious over evil. He did not intend to abrogate the 
law of self-defense. There are times when physical 
defense is a necessity. Physical courage is a plant 
of God’s own planting, and is good. There is no con¬ 
flict however, here, when we say that courage based 


MISINTERPRETED 


87 


upon moral principle and self-discipline is better. 
Experience and observation teach that it requires 
more manly courage to triumph by moral, than by 
physical force. 

In cultivating the mind and the conscience, there 
results a keen sense of justice. But the keener the 
sense, the greater the demand for self-discipline, and 
self-control. The strength or weakness of a man’s 
character is rightly estimated by this standard. To 
overcome by yielding, though paradoxical, is possi¬ 
ble. It is therefore by an inward spiritual state and 
not by an outward physical act that this precept is 
to be fulfilled. Then there is a possible possession 
of the grace of charity that insures against being easi¬ 
ly provoked. 

It must be that we understand the character of the 
Apostle Paul better from the untoward incident 
which occurred in the court of the high priest. Paul 
w r as making his defense before the council when the 
high priest commanded them, that stood by, to smite 
him on the mouth. Do you wonder that this man so 
richly endowed by nature and by grace also, should 
have cried out, in almost a prophetic spirit; God 
shall smite thee thou whited wall: for sittest thou to 
judge me after the law , and commandest me to be 
smitten contrary to the law? And yet when reproved 
Paul rises in spirit and humbly confesses his wrong. 
There is encouragement here for every Christian 
overtaken by cruel provocation, that though he fall 
he may like Paul, rise again. If this example is good, 


88 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


there is another which is still better. It is recorded 
in John xviii: 22, 23. Jesns had been brought into 
the palace to answer before the high priest, who 
questioned him as to His disciples, also as to His 
teachings. He replied in words that will stand the 
test of wisdom and civility. Whereupon one of the 
officers that stood by, struck Jesus with the palm of 
his hand saying; Answerest thou the high priest so? 
Jesus answered him, If I have spoken evil, hear wit¬ 
ness of the evil: hut if well, why smitest thou me? 
In the midst of cruel provocation, the Christian is 
here furnished with a perfect example. For in this 
answer the claims of justice are asserted and inno¬ 
cence defended not by a threat but by a searching 
question, Why smitest thou me? 

“ The spirit of the ethics of Jesus, His own exam¬ 
ple . . . and that of the apostles, ... re¬ 

quires us to recognize in these manifestly typical 
representations, vv. 39-41, not precepts to be literal¬ 
ly followed, but precepts which are certainly to be 
determined according to their idea. This idea, 
which is that of love, ... is concretely repre¬ 
sented in those examples, but has, in the relation of 
external life . . . the measure and the limita¬ 

tion of its moral practice.” (See Remark, Meyer’s 
Commentary, in loco.) 

Matthew v: 48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as 
your Father which is in heaven is perfect. 

The key to the right understanding of this verse, 


MISINTERPRETED 


89 


is found in the preceding verses as far back as the 
43rd. and especially the 44th. verse, which latter 
reads; But I say unto you, Love your enemies , . . 

. That ye may be the children of your Father 
which is in heaven: for he maketh his sun to rise on the 
evil and on the good, and sendeth rain on the just 
and on the unjust. The perfection therefore com¬ 
manded in the text consists in likeness to God in His 
dealings with His enemies. The teaching is exalted, 
but not more than the teacher. The standard is high, 
but not higher than our calling as children of God. 
For by His grace we are children, and by the same 
grace we may be like Him in dealing with those who 
despitefully use us. 

As a rule of life, then, this precept is perfect. It 
leads up to God. We may fail to=day, but such fail¬ 
ure does not destroy our confidence in the standard, 
neither our purpose to strive to attain it. We may 
say as did the Apostle Paul; Not as though I had 
already attained, either were already perfect: bid I 
follow after, if that I may apprehend that for which 
also I am apprehended of Christ Jesus. In attain¬ 
ments made through such motives, self=righteousness 
is impossible. So intimate is the relation of this pos¬ 
sible holiness of heart and life, that this precept can¬ 
not be fulfilled in the absence of one or the other. 
To love our neighbor aright, we must first love our 
God. Holiness and purity of heart are required by 
this precept. For in another place it is written; 
Be ye holy; for I am holy. 


90 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


From such understanding of this passage, there is 
no room for the ancient doctrine of Christian perfec¬ 
tion in this life. However unjust the charges of 
Semi-Pelagianism against Arminius, and however 
satisfactorily he may have refuted them; yet it can¬ 
not be denied that there lurks somewhere in the 
workings of his system a tendency to this doctrine. 
Here and there among his followers even unto this 
day, there are those who, becoming dissatisfied with 
their slow spiritual progress, insist upon emphasizing 
out of all proportion, the human side of the work of 
salvation. They say; God commands perfection, the 
command implies ability to attain it; such attainment 
is holiness; such holiness is sanctification; and such 
sanctification is sinlessness. 

Said a young Christian, while yet a student in col¬ 
lege, full of zeal because of the inherent uplifting 
power of the human will, and carried away by this 
newly discovered tenet of perfection; “God does not 
command impossibilities. If he commands perfec¬ 
tion then the thing commanded is attainable.” 

To a certain class of minds, there is something in¬ 
fatuating in this, to them a new and progressive relig¬ 
ious thought. Hence they look with compassion on 
those who refuse to accept their new light. Said one 
of these sanctified and self-satisfied ones in a person¬ 
al conversation; “ Really it requires an effort to keep 
sweet when so many professing Christians are satis¬ 
fied to live in an unsanctified state.” A minister not 
long since told me, in regard to one of the churches 


MISINTERPRETED 


91 


to which he was ministering; “ So many of the mem¬ 
bers have been carried away by this doctrine of per¬ 
fectionism, I fear that my work among them is at an 
end. I find no place for preaching the doctrines of 
sin, confession, repentance, and divine grace.” The 
good minister was right. Those of his flock thus 
minded were beyond, in theory at least, the necessity 
of the fundamental teachings of the gospel. Far 
better to be possessed of the humble spirit of the pub¬ 
lican, for the sake of real Christian progress, who in 
his humility cried out; God be merciful to me a sin¬ 
ner. 

Interpret, therefore, this passage in its connection. 
It points the way by which we may become the chil¬ 
dren of our Father which is in heaven. Strive there¬ 
fore to be perfect in loving # your enemies. Says 
Barnes in loco; “ This is a law of Christianity, origi¬ 
nal and peculiar. No system but this has required it, 
and no act of Christian piety is more difficult. None 
shows more the power of the grace of God . . . 

and none furnishes better evidence of piety.” 

Matthew vi: 84 . Take therefore no thought for the 
morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the 
things of itself '. Sufficient unto the day is the evil 
thereof. 

Serious objections have been brought against this 
text as being dangerous and immoral, because it en¬ 
courages improvidence and lack of forethought. 
From whatever source these cavillings may have aris- 


92 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


en, they argue ignorance of the Greek term, which 
is here translated “ take no thought ,” also, of the fact 
that the word thought is here used in an obsolete 
sense. The original term as defined by Robinson’s 
N. T. Lex., means, “ To take anxious thought ”. And 
this is the sense which was attached to the word 
when our translation was made. “ ‘ Thought ’ says 
Trench in his Glossary of English Words, ‘is con¬ 
stantly anxious care in our earlier English.’ ” The 
following are his illustrations. 

He so plagued and vexed his father with injurious indignities, 
that the old man for very thought and grief of heart pined away 
and died. Holland, Camden’s Ireland , p. 120. 

In five hundred years only two queens have died in childbirth. 
Queen Catherine Parr died rather of thought . 

Tracts during the Reign of Queen Elizabeth; Somer’s Tracts Yol. 
I, p. 172. 

Harris, an alderman of London, was put in trouble, and died 
of thought and anxiety before his business came to an end. 

Bacon, The History of King Henry VII. 

With this understanding of the word, the text is 
relieved from all ambiguity. It forbids over anxiety, 
but in no sense discourages prudent forethought. 
The Revised version 1881 recognizing that the word 
thought had lost its original meaning, translates; Be 
not therefore anxious for the morrow\for the morrow 
will he anxious for itself. Sufficient unto the day is 
the evil thereof. In this version the word morrow is 
personified. It cares for itself, not for the things of 
itself. The translation is evidently from a Greek text 
that omits the term for the things of. (Compare 


MISINTERPRETED 


93 


Westcott and Hort’s Gr. Test.) This is confirmed by 
the immediate context; Sufficient unto the day is the 
evil thereof. Each day has its own burden of care. 
Besides it is always to-day. The ills of the impos¬ 
sible to-morrow are imaginary. Deal not in futures. 
Poor human nature has always needed this precept. 
It finds a place in other writings, especially in the 
Jewish Talmud. It is practical and commomsense. 
But in its present setting, it is also spiritual. From 
its connection, we learn that it is occasioned by dis¬ 
trust, which is remedied by faith, and by obedience 
to the words of the 33rd verse; But seek ye first the 
kingdom of God, and his righteousness ; and all 
these things shall he added unto you. 

Matthew x: 10. Nor scrip for your journey, 
neither two coats, neither shoes nor yet staves: for 
the workman is worthy of his meat. 

Our attention is called to a single word in this 
verse, and not to its teaching as a whole. Although 
it is conceded that the prohibition was temporary, 
since we read in Luke xxii: 36; Then he said unto 
them, But now, he that hath a purse, let him take it, 
and likewise his scrip: ... In this the com¬ 
mand is reversed because of change in their condi¬ 
tion. 

The question is as to the meaning of the word 
scrip in the first clause. Dr. Eadie in his elaborate 
and invaluable History of the English Bible, is re¬ 
sponsible for the following; . . . “ an intelligent 


94 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


person was asked, ‘What scrip for your journey 
must mean?’ replied at once, ‘ Oh, some kind of orien¬ 
tal promissory note.’ ” A few days ago I put the 
same question to an intelligent Bible reader, wdio re¬ 
plied; “ I always thought it meant some kind of 
money.” Doubtless, because the word is modern in 
form, this is the answer that ninetymine out of a hun¬ 
dred would return. But though modern in form, the 
word is archaic in meaning. In Scripture usage it 
means; a wallet, pouch or bag, for carrying food 
while on a journey. In I Sam. xvii: 40, we read; 
that David . . . chose him five smooth stones 

out of the brook, and put them in a shepherd's bag 
which he had, even in a scrip.” The Revised ver¬ 
sion 1881 gives the correct rendering of our text as 
follows: No wallet for your journey, neither two coats, 
nor shoes nor staff: for the labourer is worthy of 
his food. 

Matthew xii:31. Wherefore I say unto you, 
All manner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven 
unto men: but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost 
shall not be forgiven unto men. 

Dr. Thomas Scott in his comments on this text, says; 
“ Scarcely anything, in the whole Scripture, has given 
more discouragement to weak Christians than this 
passage, and a few others coincident with it.” In the 
same connection, he makes the startling remark; 
‘Almost every humble and conscientious believer, at 
one time or other is tempted to think that he has 


MISINTERPRETED 


95 


committed the unpardonable sin; and the interpreta¬ 
tions which may have given, without properly advert¬ 
ing to the context have frequently tended to increase 
these apprehensions and difficulties.’” The severe 
religious atmosphere which prevailed in Dr. Scott’s 
time was favorable to such misapprehension. Chris¬ 
tians in our day, however, are less severe in their judg¬ 
ment against themselves. On this account, and for 
other reasons doubtless, this false apprehension is not 
now a prevailing form of temptation. Doubtless, how¬ 
ever, there are some among us who have either come 
in contact with, or at least, have heard of, individuals, 
who were suffering from this sad delusion. While 
the spirit of the age has had much to do with the prev¬ 
alence of this serious affliction, yet it must be traced 
chiefly to a gross misapprehension of the teaching 
of this passage. 

By noting the connection, it will be found that these 
w^ords of the Savior, are not addressed to humble be¬ 
lievers. He was reproving the proud Pharisees. 
They blasphemously asserted that; This fellow doth 
not cast out devils, hut by Beelzebub, the prince of the 
devils. In reply, Jesus not only claimed that He cast 
out devils by the Spirit of God; but sustained the 
claim by a searching argument. Then by an easy 
transition, He comes to revelation, and with authority 
adds; Wherefore I say unto you, All manner of sin 
and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto men: but the 
blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall not be for - 
given unto men . He thus solemnly warns the Phari- 


96 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


sees, lest in their wicked boldness they should go a step 
too far and blaspheme the Holy Ghost; a sin for which 
there was no forgiveness. It is the Pharisee, and the 
wicked blasphemer in all ages of the world that are 
here addressed. By no possible interpretation there¬ 
fore, can these words be applied to Christians. 

Another source of misunderstanding of this text is 
a misconception as to the nature of this sin. A mis¬ 
conception arising from what Alford denominates; 
“The prejudice which possesses men’s minds owing 
to the use of the words, * the sin against the Holy 
Ghost.’ It is not a particular species of sin which is 
herein condemmed, but a definite act showing a state 
of sin, and that state a wilful determined opposition to 
the present power of the Holy Spirit; and this as 
shown by its fruit, blasphemy .” Lange, Am. Ed ., 
says; “ It is unscriptural to identify blasphemy against 
the Holy Spirit with sin against the Holy Spirit.” 
All blasphemy is sin but all sin is not blasphemy. 
There are sins against the Holy Spirit that may be 
forgiven, such as resisting, grieving and quenching 
the Spirit; but maliciously attributing the power of 
the Holy Ghost to an evil spirit, is what here the 
Savior pronounces blasphemy. A sin which involves 
a determined purpose to detract from the divine maj¬ 
esty of the Holy Spirit. Such a sin can in no wise 
be charged to a Christian. Besides, rightly under¬ 
stood, the words of the Savior were not uttered as a 
judgment against, but as a warning to the Pharisees, 
and to the revilers of God in all ages, lest the danger 


MISINTERPRETED 


97 


line should be passed and the unpardonable sin of 
blasphemy be committed. 

If the above considerations be correct, then this 
dreaded sin is impossible to the Christian believer. 
He may be guilty of entertaining doubts and fears and 
thus become oppressed by spiritual darkness, but 
from all this he may be delivered since his sin is that 
of unbelief, a sin that is pardonable. 

Luke xiii : 24. Strive to enter in at the strait 
gate: for many , I say unto you, will seek to enter in, 
and shall not be able. 

The above is an indirect though pertinent reply to 
the question of the preceding verse Are there few 
that be saved? The full answer includes the para¬ 
graph to the close of the verse 30. Instead of gratify¬ 
ing curiosity, our Lord exhorts his hearers; that if 
they would be among the number of the saved they 
must strive to enter in at the strait gate. And in 
the same sentence He solemnly warns them against 
being found amongst the many that seek, and are 
not able to enter because the door shall be shut. 
This question was a speculative one among the Jews, 
hence Jesus assures them, that whether the number of 
the saved be few or many, the limitations would not be 
in accordance with their thoughts, Claims of salva¬ 
tion resting on national privileges or home influences 
were deceitful and false. Many shall seek to enter 
in and not be able after the door is shut; but other 
many the number of whom no man can number, shall 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


come from the east, and west, from the north, and 
from the south, and sit down in the kingdom of-God. 
By the laws of this kingdom, all human calculations 
are reversed for, behold there are last, in point of 
privilege who shall be first, and there are first, in 
point of privilege, who shall be last. 

This answer with its superhuman wisdom, and its 
personal application comes home to Gentiles as well 
as Jews, who are deceiving themselves by false claims 
of personal religious privileges. The meaning of this 
reply, as a whole is easily understood; but the inter¬ 
pretation of the text itself depends upon the punctu¬ 
ation. The ordinary pointing is a full stop discon¬ 
necting the text with what follows. This is based 
upon a number of critical Greek texts. Those who es¬ 
pouse the correctness of this pointing, explain the verse 
as elliptical. Accordingly after the phrase, enter in, 
they supply in both instances, the words, “ into sal¬ 
vation or into the Kingdom of God” And they ex¬ 
plain that the emphasis of the command is, “ to seek to 
enter in at the narrow door, for many shall seek to 
enter ( elsewhere) and shall not be able.” (So Alford, 
in loco.) 

A much less common pointing of the verse is by a 
comma, instead of a period. Among early English 
versions, Wycliffe seems to be the only exception, all 
the others use a period. But he, by adopting the 
comma, connects our verse with verse 25, which 
gives the reason for not being able, which is, that the 
door would be shut. This punctuation is sanctioned 


MISINTERPRETED 


99 


by important Greek texts of the New Testament, 
prominent among which is that of the late text of 
Westcott and Hort. Bloomfield adopts this pointing 
and explains in commenting on verse 25; “I have 
preferred the punctuation of the Bale Editor, and 
approved by Bornemann, because it seems most agree¬ 
able to the context to connect this verse, (as the Syr. 
Transl. and Beza did) with the preceding, rather than 
th e following” Mr. Barnes, in commenting upon the 
passage, remarks: “But a more probable meaning of 
this passage is that which refers this seeking to a 
time that shall be too late; to the time when the mas¬ 
ter has risen up. ” 

If in pointing the period is retained, which is fa¬ 
vored by Alford and other high authorities, then the 
first interpretation is correct. Yet very few hearers, 
or even readers, are able to supply the words required 
in order to complete the sense. The second explana¬ 
tion therefore, which bases itself upon the introduc¬ 
tion of the comma, seems preferable since it meets all 
the demands of the connection, and renders the 
meaning plain and forceful. Besides it is supported 
by equally good authorities. 

Luke xviii: 12. I fast twice in the week, I give 
tithes of all that I possess. 

The system of tithing belongs to the Old Testa 
ment economy. In many fundamentals the a, b, c, 
of Christianity is found in the Jewish religion. In 
Matt, xxiii: 23, Christ recognizes the use of the tithe, 


100 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


but points out its abuse. The clause in our text, I 
give tithes of all that I possess, is doubtless a mis¬ 
translation. The Greek word for I possess, is better 
rendered by “ I get” or “I acquire.” Alford says; 
“Not all that I possess, which is an incorrect render¬ 
ing, but of all that I acquire .” Then like other pas¬ 
sages, this suffers from misinterpretation by reason 
of being considered out of its connection. By re¬ 
membering the simple statement, a vague impression 
arises that the passage, in some way, refers to Chris¬ 
tian giving, or at least to the Jewish system of tithing. 
But nothing can be further from the truth. The 
clause in its connection is the language of a boaster. 
In claiming to fast twice in the week, and to give 
tithes of all that he gained, he loudly professes a self- 
imposed obedience beyond the requirements of the 
law. By referring to Lev. xxvii: 30, Num. xxviii: 21, 
and especially Deut. xiv: 22, 23, and 28, 29; it will be 
seen that a tenth was required for the priesthood; 
another tenth for the sanctuary; and still another 
tenth once in three years for the poor. Surely such 
demands were sufficiently exacting, yet our Pharisee 
proclaims a self-righteousness that exceeds them all. 

Plainly such language can have no reference to a 
correct standard of Old Testament tithing; and if not 
to the Jewish, much less to the Christian standard of 
giving. True the New Testament law of beneficence 
is founded on that of the Old Testament. The fun¬ 
damental objects are the same: namely, the support 
of the ministry, the support of the sanctuary, and the 


MISINTERPRETED 


101 


support of the poor. Besides, the purpose is the 
same, which is the expression of religious gratitude. 
But under the Old economy, it was largely of the let¬ 
ter, and under the New, it is largely of the spirit. And 
yet under both it is a solemn religious service. The 
Apostle Paul in I Cor. xvi: 2, spells out from the let¬ 
ters of the Jewish law the fundamental principle of 
Christian beneficence. The principle is of universal ap¬ 
plication, let each one of you lay by him in store. It 
involves a fixed basis applicable to each one, as he 
may prosper; also a fixed time for the determination 
of the amount, the first day of the week. (See Ke- 
vised version.) This Pauline principle if applied in 
its spirit would meet the needs of the individual con¬ 
science and the wants of an agressive Christianity. 

Our passage, therefore, has no bearing whatever 
upon either Jewish or Christian beneficence; but 
forms a part of one of the most striking word pictures 
of the Bible. By a single stroke of color it helps to 
delineate the proud nature of the Pharisee, in strong 
contrast with the humble spirit of the Publican. 

Luke xxi: 9. But when ye shall hear of wars and 
commotions , be not terrified: for these things must 
first come to pass; but the end is not by and by. 

It is remarkable to what an extent some words 
retain their form, and yet, in course of time, lose 
their original meaning. The phrase, by and by, of 
our text, which occurs frequentl y in the Scriptures is 
an example in which the form is retained, but the 


102 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


change of meaning is complete. The sense now 
being the very opposite from what it was originally. 
By the words by and by , we understand the near 
future. At the time the Authorized version was 
made, however, this phraze meant immediately, at 
once. Trench in his Glossary of English Words, 
remarks; “ The inveterate procrastination of men has 
put ‘by and by’ farther and farther off.” Take a 
single one of his examples; 

When Demophantus fell to the ground, his Soldiers fled by 
and by (—) upon it. —North, Plutarch's Lives, p. 308. 

When the daughter of Herodias, by the command 
of her mother, said; I will that thou give me by and 
by in a charger the head of John the Baptist, she 
did not mean that it should be done at the conveni¬ 
ence of the king, some time in the near future; but rather 
at once, as prompted by the impatience of her mother. 
So the record of this infamous transaction reads, in the 
sixth chapter of Mark; And immediately the king 
sent an executioner, . . . and he went and be¬ 

headed him in the prison, And b nought his head in 
a charger, and gave it to the damsel: and the damsel 
gave it to her mother. 

Other examples might be cited, wherein the words 
by and by, lead to confusion by changing the mean¬ 
ing of the sentence to the very opposite for what was 
intended; but probably there is none so serious as 
that of our text. The Savior is addressing His disci¬ 
ples, who are anxious in regard to the fulfdment of 
His prophetic words respecting the destruction of 


MISINTERPRETED 


103 


Jerusalem, and the end of the world. In this imme 
diate connection, Jesus warns them against being led 
astray by false Christs, who if possible would deceive 
the very elect; neither must they be terrified by rea¬ 
son of wars and rumors of wars; these things must 
first come to pass; hut the end is not hy and by. 
Understood as Jesus intended, these words silenced 
their fears. They were assured that though the crisis 
was approaching, yet the end would not be immedi¬ 
ately. Bible readers unless their attention has been 
called to the radical change of meaning in the words 
hy and hy, must fail to interpret aright the teaching 
here set forth by the Savior, since as we understand 
the phrase, the sense is opposite from what was in¬ 
tended. The Revised version, here as in many other 
places, comes to the relief of the English reader, and 
translates the last clause of our text; hut the end is 
not immediately. 

Acts xxi: 15. And after those days we took up 
our carriages , and went up to Jerusalem. 

This text furnishes another example of a word 
modern in form but obsolete in sense. It is this fa¬ 
miliarity of form that renders such words so mis¬ 
chievous. There is nothing in the word carriages to 
lend even a suspicion that it means anything unus¬ 
ual, but simply some sort of a cart or wagon. If 
this were really its meaning, then the question urged 
by an infidel against the truthfulness of the Book of 
Acts, as cited by Dr. Trench, (See On the A. V. of 


104 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


N. T. p. 28.) would have real force. The objector 
triumphantly asks; “ How could they have taken up 
their carriages when there is no road for wheels, 
nothing but a mountain-track between Cseserea and 
Jerusalem?” The weakness of this seemingly home 
thrust, lies in the fact that the word carriages meant 
at the time our Authorized version was made, not 
that which carries, but that which is carried. We 
read in Sam. xvii: 22, And David left his carriage 
in the hand of the keeper of the carriage , and ran 
into the army , and came and saluted his brethren. 
The margin reads; “the vessels from upon him.” 
That is whatever David brought with him he left 
with the keeper of the baggage. Tyndale 1534 ren¬ 
ders the phrase; We made oure selfes redy. Cran- 
mer 1539 reads; We toke up oure burthens. The 
Genevan version has; We trussed up our fardels , 
and went up to Hierusalem. 

It is a question with some, based upon a slight 
difference of the Greek word in earlier and later edi¬ 
tions of the Greek Testament, whether the luggage 
from the ship was deposited in Caesarea, or whether 
it was simply packed for the journey to Jerusalem. 
This latter seems the more likely, in that their bag¬ 
gage was made up in part at least, of the alms which 
they taking to Jerusalem. No great importance, 
however, attaches itself to this, except that every 
incident in Paul’s journey is of interest, but here we 
are to confine our inquiry to the right understanding 
of the word carriages. It is really a matter of con- 


MISINTERPRETED 


105 


gratulation, therefore, that we read in the Revised 
version, 1881; After these days we took up our hag- 
gage and went up to Jerusalem. 

I Cor. ii: 9. But as it is written, Eye hath not 
seen nor ear heard, neither have entered into the 
heart of men, the things which God hath prepared 
for them that love him. 

This familiar text by misinterpretation is sadly 
misused. It is understood as setting forth the unseen 
glories of the future world. And is so used in the 
pulpit, and on the floor of the prayer^meeting. 
Doubtless outside of its connection, the passage is an 
appropriate description of the possibilities implied in 
the things which God hath prepared and which He 
holds in reserve in heaven. Things which so far 
surpass the excellencies of earth, that the mind of 
man cannot even conceive of them. 

All this is true but it is not the truth taught here. 
The connection shows that the Apostle is speaking of 
God’s wisdom in a mystery, even the wisdom hidden, 
yet ordained before the world unto our glory, a wis¬ 
dom not understood by the rulers of this world, but 
by the humble followers of God to whom it hath been 
revealed by his Spirit; to the end, that we might 
know the things that are freely given to us of God; 
that is, the things which underlie revealed religion; 
comprising Gospel benefits and blessings, all the 
spiritual realities involved in the wonderful riches of 
God’s grace so freely offered in the Gospel, and so 


106 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


easily discerned by the spiritual eye and ear of the 
believer. The truth of the text as thus explained is 
important and finds abundant place in the Scriptures, 
but this text, being so commonly misunderstood, is 
rarely ever cited as enforcing it. 

According to Lange, God has prepared for His peo¬ 
ple who wait for Him things far exceeding all human 
experience and observation. Alford explains the 
phrase (as he translates it) that we may know the things 
freely given to us by God, as; “ the treasures of wis¬ 
dom and of felicity which are the free gifts of the 
gospel dispensation.” These deep things of God , in 
the tenth verse, Calvin says, must be understood as; 
“ The entire doctrine of salvation, which would have 
been to no purpose set before us in the Scriptures, 
were it not that God elevates our minds to it by His 
Spirit.” 

This text affords another example whereby a false 
interpretation, the tendency manifests itself to mag¬ 
nify the glories of heaven at the expense of spiritual 
blessings vouchsafed to believers while on earth. 
By such treatment not only is the text misused but 
the children of God suffer loss. 

I Cor. iv : 4. For I know nothing by myself; yet 
am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth me is 
the Lord. 

Interpreted in any modern sense, the first 
clause of our verse is meaningless. The phrase by 
myself in ordinary speech means to be alone, to be 


MISINTERPRETED 


107 


separated from others. But this cannot be the mean¬ 
ing of the phrase here. It is quite natural for the in¬ 
telligent reader to attach some sort of meaning to the 
text and therefore may think to interpret the phrase, 
that without the help of others and especially without 
God’s help Paul knew nothing. But such under¬ 
standing is a gross misunderstanding of the passage. 

The proposition, by, has a host of meanings such 
as; at, near, with, through, during, for, and still 
others that may suggest themselves, but none of 
them help to any intelligible intrepretation here. 
The reason is that while the word is modern in form 
it is archaic in sense. When our translation was, 
made, in this connection, it meant simply against. 
Eadie in his Hist. Eng. Bible II. 374, says in re¬ 
spect to this phrase; “ The idiom is old English, as 
in Webb’s travels, 1590, ‘ they could find nothing by 
me:’ Cranmer says to Henry VIII, * I am exceeding 
sorry that such faults can be proved by the queen” 
that is, against her.” 

Paul intended to say, that he regarded it a small 
thing to be judged by others. He did not even 
judge himself. For in the execution of his office as 
a minister of Christ, he knew nothing against him¬ 
self. 

Among the prominent English versions before 
1611, the Kheims translation 1582 is the only one 
whose language is not now misleading. Tyndale 1534 
translates this clause; I knowe nought by my selfe. 
He is followed by Cranmer, and by the Genevan 


108 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Bible. But the Bheims version reads; For I am 
not guilty in conscience of anything. While the use 
of the word by , is found in previous English versions 
and was in use at the time our translation was made, 
yet it could not have been very common since Deut. 
xxvii: 16, Ezek. xxii: 7, furnish the only other exam¬ 
ples of its use in this sense, in the Authorized ver¬ 
sion. The former reads; Cursed be he that setteth 
light by his father or his mother. And the latter; 
In thee have they set light by father and mother. 
The Revised version 1881 translates; For I know 
nothing against myself; yet am I not hereby justified; 
but he that judgeth me is the Lord. Rightly un¬ 
derstood therefore, this was not an empty boast on 
the part of the Apostle, since he did not claim on 
this account to be justified before God. He simply 
meant that he was not conscious of any unfaithful¬ 
ness in the discharge of his duties as a steward of the 
mysteries of God. 

Col. ii: 21. ( Touch not; taste not; handle not; 

22. Which cdl are to perish with the using.) 

Few texts have been so woefully misunderstood 
and misapplied, as the above. Notwithstanding the 
exposition of commentators, and other sources of in¬ 
formation, many Bible readers still accept of these 
words as a Bible argument against the social wine 
cup, or at least, as a Scripture warning against the 
slightest contact with intoxicating drinks. So wed¬ 
ded has this text become to the principle of total ab- 


MISINTERPRETED 


109 


stinence that there are those who while they know 
that it has not the remotest reference to this subject, 
yet they say; “ The warning is so applicable, why dis¬ 
turb the relation, why not allow it to be so used? 
“ The answer is simply because such misapplication 
of the teachings of the Scriptures is not justifiable. 
It must be, however, that the number of those who 
are willing thus to handle the words of the Bible, are 
very few. Doubtless the chief occasion of this 
gross abuse arises from failing to consider the text 
in its connection. 

The whole chapter is taken up by the Apostle in 
warning the church at Colosse against being led 
away by the traditions of men. Paul’s language here 
and in other places, shows that he met with serious 
opposition from Judaizing teachers, who sought to 
impose upon Hebrew Christians various ceremonial 
restrictions, from which through the Gospel they 
had been set free. In the immediate connection, he 
warns against these false teachers, who with seeming 
authority command in respect to meats; Touch not; 
taste not; handle not. The Apostle admits that such 
observances carried with them a show of wisdom in 
will worship, and humility, that is a voluntary serv¬ 
ice that was beyond God’s requirements, and so 
seemingly very pious. For this very reason, they 
were to guard against being brought into bondage. 
Wherefore, he says, if ye be dead with Christ from 
the rudiments of the world, why, as though living in 
the world, are ye subject to ordinances ? , . , 


110 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


after the commandments and doctrines of men? 
Christ had blotted out the hand writing of ordinan¬ 
ces, therefore they were free from them. 

Alford translates this passage, which is made up 
of verses 20, 21, and 22, all of which form but one 
sentence, and read \Ifye died with Christ from the ru¬ 
diments of the world, why, as though living in the 
world, are ye being prescribed to, handle not, nor 
taste, nor touch; (which things are all to perish 
with the using;) according to the commandments and 
teachings of men? The rendering of the Revised 
version is almost identical with this. These render¬ 
ings show the relation of our text, if possible, more 
plainly, to the whole passage, in fact that it is an in¬ 
tegral part of the whole. Further comment seems 
unnecessary; but suffer a word from Mr. Barnes, who 
in his Commentary, says; “ This passage could with 
more plausibility be pressed into the service of the 
enemies of the total abstinence societies, than into 
their support; but it really has nothing to do with 
the subject one way or the other.” 

Titus ii: 14. Who gave himself for us, that he might 
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself 
a peculiar people, zealous of good works. 

Words when first coined are stamped with definite 
meaning. By long use and wide circulation not 
infrequently the stamp becomes dim and the meaning 
lost. The word peculiar in the text has suffered 
from this cause, In Deut. xiv; 2, and the 


MISINTERPRETED 


111 


Lord hath chosen thee to he a peculiar people unto 
himself . . . The Hebrew word translated here 

peculiar, means according do Gesenins, “ property, 
wealth, private property.” In the Vulgate, the word 
is rendered by peculiarem, which means, “especial” 
“ ones own.” From this word is derived our word 
peculiar, which originally meant exclusively right, 
private property. Thus then is the meaning of the 
word in the phrase, a peculiar people , as cited above 
in Deuteronomy. So in our text the purifying unto 
himself a peculiar people , means: a people for His 
own possession. All therefore whom Christ redeems 
He purifies, and thus, they become His own, by right 
of redemption. 

Historically, however, the word peculiar has suf¬ 
fered such changes that in modern usage it retains 
but a shadow of its original significance. In ordinary 
usage as applied to individuals, it carries with it the 
idea of strangeness, singularity, oddness, and all in a 
depreciative sense. The word in our text understood 
in this modern sense is of course misleading. To 
avoid such misinterpretation, the authors of the Re¬ 
vised version 1881, translate the passage, who gave 
himself for us, that he might redeem us from all in¬ 
iquity, and purify unto himself a people for his own 
possession, zealous of good works. The redeemed 
of the Lord therefore by right of purchase become 
His own people, and are peculiar in no sense, as 
the modern meaning of the word would lead us to 
suppose. But whether the charge of being peculiar 


112 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


in the modern sense of this word, has not been 
merited by some Christians on account of the singu¬ 
larity of their conduct, despite the generous and 
ennobling principles of the Gospel, is quite another 
question. Yet it must be that while Christianity 
suffers, in the judgment of some, the intelligent 
observer will rightly attribute such peculiarity of 
conduct, not to Christianity but to defects in the 
natural character of the individual, or to false ideals 
arising from limited and imperfect knowledge. 

Hebrews xii: 17. For ye know how that after¬ 
ward, when he would have inherited the blessing, 
he was rejected: for he found no place of repent¬ 
ance, though he sought it carefully with tears . 

So sadly has this text been misunderstood and mis¬ 
applied that it has proved the occasion of serious 
consequences in individual religious experience. The 
case of John Bunyan, will at once suggest itself, as 
related by himself in his Grace Abounding. In a 
season of self-examination, this passage and that of 
Heb. vi: 4, were brought to his mind, and he adds; 
“Now was the Word of the Gospel forced from my 
soul, so that no promise or encouragement was to be 
found in the Bible for me.” 

Interpreters are divided as to whether this repent¬ 
ance, or change of mind, is to be referred to Isaac or 
Esau. Those who hold to the former view, under¬ 
stand that Isaac’s decision was final, in accordance 
with liis words, he (i. e. Jacob) shall be blessed , 


MISINTERPRETED 


113 


Esau therefore could find no place of repentance or 
of change in the mind of Isaac; though he sought it 
with tears, as related in Gen. xxvii: 38. Mr. Barnes 
in his Commentary says; “It does not mean that 
Esau earnestly sought to repent and could not but 
that he found no place for repentance in the mind 
of Isaac.” Lange, American edition, remarks; “ The 
opinion of Del. that Esau is here presented as a type 
of that unpardonable sin of apostasy, which draws 
after it inevitable damnation, finds no support in the 
text itself. But the seeking with tears for the change 
of mind in his father, and the father’s repelling of 
his entreaties, are recorded in Gen. xxvii: 34-38.” 
According to Meyer, though Esau besought it with 
tears, he did not succeed in causing his father, Isaac, 
to changed his mind. Meyer further insists, together 
with a number of other authorities, on this view, in 
that “ it is most naturally suggested by the context 
itself ”; also that “ it yields a clear correct thought, 
and best accords with the narrative in Genesis.” 

Bengel refers the repentance to Esau and in¬ 
sists that the word is to be understood in its New 
Testament sense, as the act of the spiritual man. 
Calvin, while he refers this repentance to Esau, ex¬ 
plains that “ the repentance here is not to be taken 
for sincere conversion to God.” He understands it to 
be “ in the sense that he profited nothing. He gained 
nothing.” Alford places himself in line with those 
who hold this view. “And thus referred to Esau 
himself,” says, “ it will mean that he found no way 


114 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


open to reverse what had been done, by repentance; 
. . . He might change, but the penalty could not. 

. . . So that 7'epentance in its full sense, had no 

place. We do not mean by it an opportunity to re¬ 
pent in a man’s own bosom, . . . for this may 

be under any circumstances, and this might have 
been with Esau: but we mean, a chance, by repent¬ 
ing, to repair .” Evidently not quite satisfied lest 
this interpretation should leave the passage open to 
a possible misunderstanding, he further adds; “ It is 
obvious, that our passage, rightly understood, can¬ 
not by any means favor the exclusion of any sinner 
from repentance.” 

While the former interpretation is decidedly pref¬ 
erable by rendering the passage clear and intellig¬ 
ible; yet in either case the warning is the same. 
Let no man trifle with the proffered inheritance held 
out in the Gospel. In Esau’s case, the birthright 
had been sold. Bitter tears could not reverse the 
judgment pronounced by Isaac the father. As it 
was with Esau’s birthright so shall it be with the 
heavenly birthright. A repentance, however, sought 
sincerely and earnestly, and yet in vain, is, according 
to the tenor of the Scripture, as completely unsup- 
posable as is a truely penitent and yet ineffectual 
seeking of the grace of God for the forgiveness of sin 
within the limits of our temporal life.” (So Lange, 
in loco.) Therefore the teaching of the text, in its 
connection, and specially its warning rightly under¬ 
stood, should not discourage, but rather lead to re¬ 
pentance. 


MISINTERPRETED 


115 


I John iii: 3. And every man that hath this 
hope in him purifieth himself, even as he is pure. 

At first sight, there appears no ambiguity nor any¬ 
thing at all wrong in this text. And yet there are 
some who understand the phrase, this hope in him, to 
refer to the hope in the heart of the individual 
Christian, where, by its moral power, it purifies. 
There are others who refer the words to Christ. 
While there are still others, who after a diligent 
study of the text and context, are satisfied that the 
the words, in him, should refer to God. Again the 
phrase, this hope, by many is made to refer to the 
Christian hope in general. It does so refer, yet in 
this connection, it seems to have a specific reference 
to something which has gone before. 

And so we find in the previous verse, that the 
Apostle is setting forth the already exalted estate of 
the children of God. And while it doth not yet appear 
what we shall he, yet, when the what shall he is 
manifested, and the unseen becomes the seen, the 
blessed consummation shall be, that we shall he like 
him (i. e. God) for we shall see Him (i. e. God) as 
he is. It is to this exalted realization, therefore, 
that this hope specially refers. Whatever this ineff¬ 
able likeness in its entirety shall be the assurance is; 
that, the sons of God shall be partakers of it. 
The true child of God longs to be free from sin, and 
the certainty of this likeness to the Father, may well 
inspire his profoundest hopes. And so our text, 
Every man that hath this hope in him (i. e. God) 
purifieth himself even as he (i. e. God) is pure. By 


116 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


reason of this divine love bestowed, which in turn 
inspires this well-grounded hope that pierces beyond 
the veil, the child of God is surrounded by a spiritual 
atmosphere of warmth and light, which make for 
purity of heart and holiness of life. (See above Tf 
on I John iii: 2. pp. 63, 64.) 


Part III. 

Misquotations. 


“ Expressions become stereotyped in public and social 
prayers—are molded in form, in the former, and multiplied 
and fixed in the latter. Hence they become sacred, and so are 
referred by the ill?informed to the bible.” 

Private letter from Rev. Elisha Ballantine, LL. D. 


Part III. 

Familiar Bible Texts Abused on Account of 
Being Misquoted. 

Genesis hi : 4. And the serpent said unto the wom¬ 
an , Ye shall not surely die. 

Because a saying is found in the Scriptures, it is 
not on this account to be accepted as an essential Bi¬ 
ble truth, “ Inspiration is concerned,” says Mr. 
Barnes in his Com. on Job, “in securing the exact 
record of what is said, not in affirming that all that 
is said is true.” One of the important canons of in¬ 
terpretation of the Holy Scriptures is to inquire 
who is the speaker? This saying of the serpent is in 
direct contradiction of God’s words of warning to 
Eve. Satan not only impugns the truthfulness of 
God, but in beguiling words, persuades the woman 
that God was not in earnest. Instead of “ dying the 
death,” he said “ your eyes shall be opened, and ye 
shall be as gods knowing good and evil” The say¬ 
ing; 

“ Ye shall not surely die,” 

may be a literal quotation, but the attributing of 
these words of Satan to God is the grossest form of 
misquotation; and yet such use has been been made 
of the saying, and its truthfulness assumed because 
119 


120 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


it is found in the Bible. Such assumption ar¬ 
gues, to say the the least, criminal ignorance. Be¬ 
sides there are others who heedlessly accept the truth 
of the saying because it is in harmony with their 
wishes. From its first utterance these words have 
been readily accepted and have exerted a most dire¬ 
ful influence. The saying lives in the secret thought 
of the heart, as well as in the outward expression of 
the tongue. And yet, it must be, that there are few 
who have the hardihood to publicly palm it off as an 
essential Bible truth. A single example, however, 
furnished me by a friend will suffice. Some years 
ago the doctrine of universal salvation, after taking 
root in the eastern part of the country, spread rapid¬ 
ly through the west. Churches were organized, and 
young men without special training entered the pul¬ 
pit to teach this popular doctrine. It was during 
this time that a prominent minister of this denomi¬ 
nation is reported to have chosen this saying for his 
text. His so-called sermon was full of Scripture ci¬ 
tations, all of which according to his interpretation 
coincided with and confirmed the words of the text. 
If the audience had stopped for a moment to con¬ 
sider who uttered this saying, would they not have 
been forcibly struck with the incongruity and folly 
of the preacher, in his effort to prove from the Bible 
the truth of Satan’s words? 

Lev. xiii: 45. And the leper in ichom the plague 
is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and 


MISQUOTED 


121 


he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and shall 
cry, Unclean, unclean. 

My attention was first called to the misquotation 
of the latter clause of this verse, by the late Rev. Eli¬ 
sha Ballantine, LL. D., for many years connected as 
Professor, also for some time as President of the State 
University of Indiana. He was not only a schol¬ 
arly man, but a most genial Christian. It was an 
honor to claim him as a friend. In a private letter 
dated Dec. 5, 1883, among other examples of this com¬ 
mon abuse of the Scriptures, he cited the following, 
which he describes as; “a curious mixture of Bible 
and absurdity which has grown in the same soil.” 
The saying as given by him reads; 

“Place our hands upon our mouths, and our mouths in 
the dust crying, unclean, unclean.” 

By adding to the last clause of our verse, the last 
clause of Lam. iii: 29, which reads; He putteth his 
mouth in the dust, we have something more of a 
Scriptural foundation for the above saying, but 
as a quotation from either one or the other it is a bad 
failure. 

Years ago, when religious experience took deep 
root in the consciousness of the sinfulness of sin, 
this saying found frequent expression in the most 
solemn confession of sin, especially in seasons of spir¬ 
itual awakening. As a saying therefore, though it 
have something of a Scriptural foundation yet as a 
professed quotation it cannot be de^lt with too se¬ 
verely. 


122 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Job ii. 4. And Satan answered the Lord, and 
said, Skin for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he 
give for his life. 

This proverbial saying has been variously inter¬ 
preted. Dr. Good, as cited by Mr. Barnes, says; 
“ The word skin imports the person of a man as well 
as his property, the whole living body which it en¬ 
velopes, as in chap, xviii. 13; xix. 26.” He further 
adds; “It is upon the double meaning of the same 
term, and the play which is here given to it, by em¬ 
ploying the term first in one sense and then in the 
other, that the gist of the proverb . . . depends.” 

It is true that in early times the skins of wild beasts 
entered largely into barter or exchange. It is true, also, 
that the word skin, as suggested by Dr. Good, is used 
in a figurative sense, and means life. With this under¬ 
standing of this obscure phrase Skin for skin as mean¬ 
ing property for life, the proverb is readily understood. 

These w T ords it will be noted are the words of Satan, 
and are not of necessity true. There are some things 
greatly to be preferred to life. Our inquiry here, how¬ 
ever, is directed not so much to the truth or falseness 
of the proverb as to the gross abuse of quoting the 
saying; 

“ Skin for skin, yea all that a man hath will he give 
for his life,” 

as having Scriptural authority. To profess to quote 
any book and foist upon its author, words that be¬ 
long to another, is a grievous offense. By so much 
the more grievous therefore is the wrong of making 


MISQUOTED 


123 


the Sacred Scriptures responsible for the truth of 
Satan’s utterances. Such offenses are not frequent, 
and yet they have occurred. (See pp. 119, 120.) 

It is reported on good authority that a judge in 
giving his charge to the jury said; “We have the 
highest authority for saying, ‘ Skin for skin, yea, all 
that a man hath will he give for his life.’ ” The pub¬ 
lic press in reporting the charge, called attention to 
the fact that these words were the words of Satan, 
and facetiously remarked; “ Now we know whom the 
judge regards as the highest authority.” 

A cutting from the New York Observer under date 
of Sept. 9, 1897, is responsible for the following. 
Speaking of “the need of discriminating between the 
things which Scripture details concerning humanity 
and those which it commends,” it adds; “The late 
Ben Butler was alive to this point, since upon one 
occasion in Congress, commenting upon the quota¬ 
tion just made by a fellow congressman, ‘ all that a 
man hath will he give for his life,’ he expressed 
gratification at learning who it was that ‘ the gentle¬ 
man considered his highest authority,’ and sat down.” 

Another example to the point, furnished me by a 
friend in a private letter , is as follows; “ I am cred¬ 
itably informed that a preacher in discoursing on the 
‘ love of life ’ said ‘God declares in His Word that, All 
that a man hath will he give for his life.’ ” We may 
smile at such heedless ignorance which attributes to 
God the words of Satan: but it is an offense that 
ought not to be winked at, 


124 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Job v: 7. Yet a man is born unto trouble , as 
the sparks fly upward. 

Our passage seems to be a proverbial expression 
condensing as it does a widely accepted truth into a 
few words. It is connected however with the verse 
preceding by the word yet ; and logically it is connec¬ 
ted with the verse following. The thought then is, 
though troubles spring not out of the ground, yet 
man is subject to them; therefore he should seek God 
and commit his cause unto him. Mr. Barnes com¬ 
menting on the words As the sparks fly upward , 
says; “The Hebrew expression here is very beautiful 
‘ as the sons of flame fly. 1 The word used means 
flame . . . the children of the flame are that 

which it produces; i. e. sparks.” 

The object, however, in calling attention to this 
passage is to point out the abuse it suffers by being 
misquoted. How often is heard in the prayer^meet- 
ing, instead of the words of the text, the expression; 

“We are prone to sin as the sparks to fly upward.” 

It may seem useless to speculate on the origin of 
this misquotation; yet possibly it might have origi¬ 
nated in the act of hearing the passage read. When 
Bibles were scarce, there were religious gatherings 
for the purpose of hearing the Scriptures read. 
Sometimes in these meetings passages were repeat¬ 
ed from memory also by those who were especially 
gifted in this line. The word, born as many would 
pronounce it, would sound very like the word “ prone.” 
And as the sense expressed by this latter word, would 


MISQUOTED 


125 


commend itself to the religious consciousness of the 
hearer, the change could easily occur without going 
so far back. By the dull hearing of the ear, this 
change might have occurred even in our own times, 
though Bibles are ever so plentiful. Then since all 
trouble originates in sin it would not be difficult for 
the hearer to substitute in his thoughts the word 
“ sin ” for that of trouble. And once originated it is 
not hard to understand how by being often repeated 
in public and social prayers, this saying would be¬ 
come fixed and widespread, and so displace the true 
text. 

Job xx; 12. Though wickedness be sweet in his 
mouth, though he hide it under his tongue; . 

14. Yet his meat in his bowels is turned, it is 
the gall of asps within him. 

Zophar the Naamathite, throughout this chapter 
portrays the evil estate of the wicked man; and all in 
furtherance of the argument of the friends of Job, 
that calamity is an evidence of personal guilt. Job’s 
afflictions, according to the prevalent opinion, indi¬ 
cated that he was a sinner beyond others. With this 
false sentiment we have nothing to do only so far as 
it bears on Zophar’s argument. In this immediate 
connection, his words set forth the deceitfulness 
of sin. By its pleasant taste, it promises whole¬ 
someness to the stomach, but instead, it proves as 




126 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


the gall of asps. Thus helping his argument that 
though the sinner may prosper for a season yet ca¬ 
lamity would sooner or later overtake him, and thus 
discover his guilt. 

In misquoting the first clause of the text, it is 
made to read; 

“We roll sin under our tongue as a sweet morsel.” 

“ It is from this passage, probably,” says Mr. 
Barnes, “ that we have derived the phrase, * to roll 
sin as a sweet morsel under the tongue,’ which is 
often quoted as if it were a part of Scripture.” It is 
true that the misquotation has but a slight con¬ 
nection with the text, since th ere are but three words 
in common between them; but what ought to con¬ 
demn the saying is, that it is another case of perver¬ 
sion, in which the authority of Scripture is ascribed 
to the words of a mere man. Besides these words of 
Zopliar are put forth as an argument, in part, to sup¬ 
port a false proposition that men are punished in 
this world for their sins. 

Our phrase has sacred associations. In the prayer¬ 
meeting it is used as describing the deceitful nature 
of sin, and so far is made a basis of confession of 
moral weakness, also as a plea for divine strength. 
Yet fully persuaded that the words of the text are 
naught but the words of a man, and are used to 
support a false opinion, the quotation or rather the 
misquotation deserves to be severely let alone. 


MISQUOTED 


127 


Psalm iv: 6. There be many that say, Who will 
shew us any good? Lord, lift thou up the light of 
thy countenance upon us. 

In the first clause, the word “ any ” is not found in 
the original, and our translators have so indicated by 
by printing it in italics. And yet by the insertion 
of the word they are responsible for the misquotation 
of this part of the text. Doubtless it was introduced 
to make the meaning plainer, but the thought is 
more correct without it. The question of the cen¬ 
turies has been, and is to-day; Who will show us 
good? not who will show us any good? 

The editor of Calvin’s Commentary on the Psalms , 
says in a note, in loco; “The reader will observe 
that Calvin does not use the word any, a supplement 
which is to be found in our English version. The 
question is certainly more emphatic without this 
word. ‘ The word any? says Dr. Adam Clarke, ‘ is 
not in the text, nor anything equivalent to it; and 
yet not a few have quoted it and preached upon the 
text, placing the principal emphasis upon this il¬ 
legitimate word.’ ” To my surprise the Revised 
version 1881 retains this word and thus lends its 
encouragement to this misquotation. The word 
“ any,” however, is in italics. 

The second clause which reads; Lord lift thou up 
the light of thy countenance upon us, is much more 
seriously abused. By separation from its connection 
and by misquotation it is made to read; 


128 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


“ Lord, lift thou up the light of thy countenance upon us, 
and we shall be saved.” 

Thus dealt with, the sense of the passage is de¬ 
stroyed and is made to take on itself a meaning of 
its own. Such liberty with the Scriptures, though 
unintended, is inexcusable. 

Psalm xvii: 15. As for me , I will behold thy face 
in righteousness: I shall be satisfied when I awake 
with thy likeness. 

This verse has been badly misused by being 
mistranslated ( see above page 23); also by being mis¬ 
quoted. Rightly understood the satisfaction to the 
Psalmist, was to come through the realization of 
God’s presence in this life. The whole Psalm is 
redolent with prayer for protection. He would be 
kept as the apple of God’s eye. He would have God 
hide him under the shadow of His wings. The 
wicked might be contented with earthly, but he 
could be contented only with present spiritual good. 
The last clause of our text is often quoted as if it read; 

“ I shall be satisfied when I awake in thy likeness.” 

The little word “ in ” substituted here for with 
of the text, unwarrantably restricts the meaning 
to a final realization in the future world. This is 
most contrary to the whole tenor of the Psalm; besides 
it assumes the meaning of the word likeness of 
the text to be a moral likeness which is contrary 
to the meaning of the Hebrew word, 


MISQUOTED 


129 


Possibly the misquotation finds its origin in a 
a religious sentiment that prevails more widely than 
many are aware of, that spiritual joy and blessedness 
are not vouchsafed to the believer here, but are re¬ 
served for the hereafter. That somehow it is wrong 
to expect the peaceable fruits of righteousness while 
in this present world as such realization belongs to 
the future world. This thought is deeply embedded 
in modern Christian consciousness, and finds ex¬ 
pression in this phrase “ in thy likeness.” Such 
abuse does great injustice to words of the Psalmist. 
While yet among enemies he prayed for protection. 
While yet in the path of life he would be satisfied 
with God’s presence. 

Referring to this text, Dr. Alexander in loco 
says; “ But this excludes too much from the view of 
the enjoyment God’s favor and protection even here, 
which is the burden of the whole prayer. If the 
hope of future blessedness, had been enough the 
previous petitions would have been superfluous. 
The utmost that can be conceded to this view of the 
passage is that, by a natural association, what is here 
said of awaking out of sleep in this life may be ex¬ 
tended to that great awaking which awaits us all 
hereafter.” 

This misquotation, therefore, not only wrongs the 
text, but defrauds believers by blinding them to the 
possibility of a present experience of God’s favor 
to be enjoyed by awaking in consciousness to the 
spiritual fact of God’s presence. 


130 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Proverbs xi: 24. There is that scattereth , and 
yet increaseth; and there is that withholdeth more 
than is meet, hid it tendeth to poverty. 

Whether we recognize an overruling providence or 
not; our proverb declares what shall come to pass. 

There may seem to be short-sightedness and obscu¬ 
rity involved in this contradictory statement, yet in 
practical life it is found to be true. In the natural 
world the scattering of seed insures increase; so also 
in the moral world. The excellency of the proverb 
consists in its far-reaching application to the moral 
activities of men. It insures fatness to the souls of 
those who deal generously, and a corresponding lean¬ 
ness to those who deal niggardly. Though full com¬ 
pliance to this teaching is too often withheld, yet, no 
one ought to misunderstand its truthfulness. 

The right use of this proverb is, therefore, so plain 
that it is difficult even to imagine how a misquota¬ 
tion ever could have arisen, especially one that tends 
to the utter perversion of the proverb itself. And 
yet in point, and purpose, by misquotation it is 
changed beyond recognition. Instead of a clear state¬ 
ment of a providential law, by way of an incentive to 
generosity, as contained in our text, it is so abused as 
to become an unworthy appeal to God that He should 
be liberal in the disposing of His gifts. Here is the 
perversion; 

“ Giving does not impoverish thee, neither does withhold¬ 
ing make thee rich. 

Not only is this a gross perversion of our passage, 


MISQUOTED 


131 


but think for a moment of the motive it imputes to 
Jehovah. As a friend once remarked in respect to 
this misquotation and the sacred use made of it: 
“ What a plea to offer God that He should be liberal 
in bestowing His blessings upon us.” 

Proverbs xii: 10. A righteous man regardeth 
the life of his beast: but the tender mercies of the 
wicked, are cruel. 

Few texts have been so seriously abused as this. 
Everywhere and always, it is misquoted; 

“ A merciful man is merciful to his beast.” 

There are only four words here in common with 
the first clause of our text. It is a matter of surprise, 
and of literary interest as well, how so gross a blunder 
could have originated, and also how it could have be¬ 
come so extensively perpetuated. It pervades the ranks 
of the learned as well as of the unlearned. As a mis¬ 
quotation it has some meaning, but 1 acks the depth and 
religious character of our proverb. According to the 
original, the righteous man from religious principle, 
cares for the life of his beast. This thought is 
brought out by contrast with the conduct of the wick¬ 
ed whose tender mercies are cruel. As misquoted, 
however, the saying is without any religious signifi¬ 
cance and therefore the comparison is dropped. 

The following excerpt is from the New York Ob¬ 
server. It was written by the late Dr. T. W. Cham¬ 
bers, and is introduced here as having an important 
bearing on the abuse of our text. The memory of 


132 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Dr. Chambers is still fragrant among his friends, as 
an eminent Christian scholar, and as an influential 
member of the American Old Testament Committee 
on Revision. The le tter is dated Sept. 20th, 1894, 
and is as follows: 

“Messrs. Editors:— Twenty years ago the Observer corrected 
a mistaken reference I made to the good Book. After patiently 
awaiting an opportunity to reciprocate the favor, at last I find 
one. In your issue of this date you say; “‘A merciful man is 
merciful to his beast,’ says the inspired Book. ” But it says no 
such thing. What it does say (Prov. 12: 10) is: “A righteous 
man regardeth the life of his beast.” This means far more than 
the common saying which you repeat. It declares that kindness 
to dumb animals is a constituent part of the righteousnesses which 
the Scriptures enjoin. It is not only humane or merciful, but 
an act of justice.” 


The Editor adds; “Dr. Chambers has earned his 
reward, and we rejoice since only once in twenty years 
has our good friend’s watchful eye detected a misquo¬ 
tation of Scripture on the part of the New York Ob¬ 
server. Dr. Chambers is evidently sound on the 
question of docking the tails of our equine servants. 
It was in a note upon this horrible and cruel cus¬ 
tom that the inexact quotation occurred.” 

Proverbs xiii: 24. He that spareth his rod hat- 
eth his son: but he that loveth him chasteneth him be¬ 
times. 

Doubtless this his rod of our text, is largely 
symbolical and stands for moral as well as physical 
discipline. Chastisement carries with it the mean- 


MISQUOTED 


133 


ing of kind correction for the sake of reclaiming. 
Our proverb may thus be interpreted without any vio¬ 
lence to its teaching. Prof. Stuart in commenting on 
this proverb says; “ We are not obliged to understand 
rod here in the mere literal sense; but it means at 
least correction in some way for f aults .” 

The teachings of Solomon’s proverbs bearing on 
parental discipline, are too commonly understood as 
inculcating physical punishment. The wrong trans¬ 
lation of at least one proverb strengthens this popu¬ 
lar sentiment. The Authorized version renders Prov. 
xix. 18; Chasten thy son while there is hope, and let 
not thy soul spare for his crying. The Revised ver¬ 
sion, however, renders this same proverb; Chasten 
thy son, seeing there is hope; And set not thy heart 
on his destruction. In this we have the very oppo¬ 
site teaching inculcated. “A saying,” says Prof. 
Stuart, “ adapted to angry and passionate fathers, who 
may be in danger of wreaking vengeance on an offend¬ 
ing child.” 

There is no doubt but that many of the proverbs of 
Solomon, in their bearing upon parental discipline 
have been misunderstood and abused. Especially is 
this true of our text, By universal misquotation it is 
made to read; 

“ Spare the rod and spoil the child.” 

It is astonishing to what an extent the popular 
mind is influenced by this false saying. The misquo¬ 
tation robs the text of all its wisdom. The loving 
relation between the father and son is lost sight of. 


134 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


By this cruel teaching parental responsibility is limit¬ 
ed to physical force. 

Efforts for the most part to trace the origin of any 
given misquotation proves almost unavailing. In 
this instance however, by going back some two hun¬ 
dred years or more, this saying is found in Butler’s 
Hudihras, p. II. c. I. v. 844. The book was first pub¬ 
lished in 1663. The verse reads; “ Then spare the 
rod and spoil the child.” 

Whether this was a common saying in the time of 
Butler, or whether the misquotation originated with 
him, I have no means of determining. There can be 
no question, however, as to its long and wide-spread 
use, and baleful influence. Besides, our misquotation 
is remarkable as an example indicating the possible 
transmission of these sayings from century to century, 
since it is repeated to-day, word for word, as in the 
time of Butler. Little or no influence can be attached 
to his poem in keeping the saying alive, for though it 
is witty and learned; and though the poem created a 
sensation at the time of its first publication, yet it 
has never been popular. And so this false and mis¬ 
chievous saying must be regarded as having descended 
from father to son, because entrenched in the memory, 
as a wise and veritable proverb of Solomon. 

Proverbs xix: 17. He that hath pity upon the 
poor lendeth unto the Lord; and that which he hath 
given will he pay him again. 

This proverb encourages merciful feeling as well as 


MISQUOTED 


135 


charitable doing. Matthew Henry, in commenting 
upon this text says; “Those that have not a penny 
for the poor, yet may have pity for them, a charitable 
concern and sympathy.” Besides he adds; “If a 
man give all his goods to feed the poor , and have not 
this charity in his heart, it is nothing” Again, “We 
must not only pity . . . but give.” Genuine 

charity will find expression in deeds if not in gifts; 
and really it is something done, rather than something 
given, that constitutes this loan. Moses Stuart trans¬ 
lates the Hebrew for hath given, “his work.” The 
meaning of the Hebrew is “ anything done.” He 
translates the whole proverb; He who hath mercy on 
the poor, lendeth to the Lord; and his work will he 
reward to him. 

By misquoting the proverb, all the compassion for 
Jehovah’s sake is left out, and it is made to read; 

“He that giveth to the poor lendeth to the Lord.” 

Not only is the compassion left out, but the assur¬ 
ance of reward also; as the last clause is never in¬ 
cluded in the saying. Hence the Divine recognition 
is, evidently, not appreciated. By such dealing the 
religious element of the proverb is destroyed. 

The following clippingfrom a newspaper, illustrates 
our subject; and though lacking in some particulars, 
yet it will not be difficult to identify the teacher of 
the Bible class, notwithstanding his full name is not 
given, nor the name of the city where the church is 
located. 

“The subject before Rev. Mr. Pierson’s Bible class 


136 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


at the Second Presbyterian Church last night was 
‘Charity; Giving to the poor’; and the Doctor in a 
most guileful manner suggested, ‘ There is a passage 
in Proverbs that bears upon the matter. Can any of 
you recall it?’ This was something so easy that from 
all parts of the room rose the murmur, in a highly 
gratified tone of voice, ‘ He that giveth to the poor 
lendeth to the Lord.’ And then a wave of deep dis¬ 
gust spread over the assemblage when they learned 
that no such passage was in existence in Proverbs, or 
anywhere else.” 

This text will doubtless suggest to many the cele¬ 
brated Charity sermon attributed to Dean Swift. In 
order to trace the possible origin of this misquotation, 
diligent search has been made, through the kind 
efforts of librarians of several prominent college and 
city libraries for at least a notice of the sermon, for 
the sake of the exact words used by the Dean; but all 
in vain. In response to the above inquiry a friend 
writes; 

“ Dean Swift was called upon to preach a Char¬ 
ity sermon for a most worthy object, in London. 
. . . He ascended the pulpit and gave out the text, 

Prov. xix: 17. . . . He paused a moment and then 

added, ‘ My brethren, if you like the security down 
with the dust.’ This is the story as it is usually told.” 

Isaiah, xxxv: 8. And an highway shall he there, 
and a way, and it shallbe called, The way of holiness; 
the unclean shall not pass over it; hut it shall be for 


MISQUOTED 


137 


those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall not err 
therein. 

This notable chapter is full of New Testament 
ideas. It foreshadows the hopes and joys to be real¬ 
ized in the coming glory o f the kingdom of Christ. 
The language not only appeals to the imagination but 
satisfies the spiritual nature. Like as it was in the 
deliverance of the Israelites from bondage, the ran¬ 
somed of the Lord shall return with songs and ever¬ 
lasting joys upon their heads. And a highway shall 
be there . . . The way of holiness. It shall be 

so high and so holy that t he redeemed shall walk 
therein in safety. 

So graphic and inspiring are the prophet’s words, that 
almost every verse is familiarly quoted, or possibly 
misquoted, at least this latte r statement applies to our 
text. While the text as a whole is clear, yet the mid¬ 
dle clause is somewhat obscure. Apparently in order 
to do away with the obscurity, those who originated 
the misquotation omitted the clause; hut it shall he 
for those; and substituted the words; “and the re¬ 
deemed of the Lord shall walk there.” Then to bring 
out the meaning of the last c lause, the words, “ and it 
shall be so plain ” are inserted immediately preceding 
it. Sometimes the words of the text, and a way, are 
omitted. The text then as misquoted would read; 

“ And a highway shall be there and it shall be called the 
way of holiness. The unclean shall not pass over it, 
but the redeemed of the Lord shall walk there. 

And it shall be so plain that wayfaring men 
though fools, need not err therein.” 


138 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


Conscientious and learned translators, with the or¬ 
iginal text before them, may change an accepted ren¬ 
dering provided the change is confirmed by a consen¬ 
sus of opinion of Biblical scholars; but to mangle 
the text, as above, by adding and omitting clauses is 
most unseemly and dangerous. 


Isaiah lv: 8. For my thoughts are not your 
thoughts , neither are your ways my ways, saith the 
Lokd. 

Oue text is remarkable for its strength and beau¬ 
ty. Compared with the Hebrew it is so correct that 
the revisers of 1885, found no reason for changing a 
single word; and yet many by misquotation think to 
add to its effectiveness by inserting unauthorized 
words. By such attempt the very life blood is taken 
out of the text. This is done by supplying in two 
instances the word “ as,” by which, comparisons are 
introduced where no comparisons were intended. By 
such mistreatment the whole character of the text is 
changed. 

As it stands the passage contains a direct state¬ 
ment, that God’s thoughts are not our thoughts and 
our ways are not His ways; but by misquotation it is 
changed to; 

“For my thoughts are not as your thoughts, neith¬ 
er are your ways as my ways, 
saith the Lord.” 

By such dealing, it is too evident that the text is 


MISQUOTED 


139 


softened down, and its force and meaning taken away. 

Micah iv: 4. But they shall sit every man under 
his vine and under his fig-tree: and none shall make 
them afraid: for the mouth of the Lokd of hosts 
hath spoken it. 

This verse forms but a part of the picture of the 
universal peace that shall prevail in the Messiah’s 
kingdom. The mountain of the house of the Lord 
shall he established on the top of the mountains; 

. . . and they shall heat their swords into 

plowshares , and their spears into pruninghooks: 
nation shall not lift up a sword against nation , 
neither shall they learn tear any more. Micah 
gives the main points of this prophecy almost word 
for word, as it appears in the book of Isaiah, Thus 
confirming the vision, and strengthening the hearts 
of the people. In the days of the Prophet, the peo¬ 
ple must have been slow to credit his words. Even 
in our ow T n time the vision is still a vision. One rea¬ 
son for this is the mistaken views in regard to the 
interpretation of prophecy. In the very nature of a 
vision the picture is seen as a whole; but as a pro¬ 
phecy, it must have a beginning, a middle and an 
ending. When Christ was born, the proclamation 
went forth and this peace began. In His life and 
teachings He enunciated precepts and principles 
sufficient in themselves to bring about the complete 
fulfilment of this prophecy; and yet, as the Prince of 
peace, He was despised; and His teachings were re- 


140 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


jected. Notwithstanding this, wonderful has been 
the development of His kingdom in the world. Christ 
reigns in the hearts of His people to-day, and the 
beneficence of His government is felt by foe as well 
as friend. 

In the beginning Jesus commanded the sword to 
be sheathed. As it was in the beginning so it shall 
be in the ending. But in the meantime, by reason 
of opposition from without, He commanded the 
sword to be unsheathed. And so to-day so far as the 
world enjoys peace, it is an armed peace. A peace to 
be hailed with joy, but it is not the peace described 
here. Nominal Christian politics has done much in 
these latter days, and will do more to promote inter¬ 
national peace; but it has its severe limitations. 
Righteousness on the part of rulers is “a consumma¬ 
tion devoutly to be wished”; but as between the ruler 
and the ruled, and as between nation and nation, we 
can hardly expect this prophecy, under the present 
order of things, to be fulfilled in its completeness. 
Is the prophecy therefore untrue? Is the Gospel 
therefore a failure? God’s plans take in the last 
days as well as these latter days. Before the 
Church can reign with Christ it must suffer with 
Him. And the end is not yet. For thousands of 
years the Church of God has suffered visible defeats; 
but according to the word of prophecy, it shall enjoy 
a thousand years of visible triumph. Wise interpre¬ 
ters may differ in their theories, as to the when , 
and the how these prophecies shall be fulfilled, but 


MISQUOTED 


141 


such differences matter nothing. The word of pro¬ 
phecy stands and it shall be fulfilled, for the mouth 
of the Lord of hosts hath spoken it. 

The object of this study, however, is not so much, 
the right interpretation of the prophecy, as to call 
attention to the sometimes incorrect quotation of the 
words of our text. Not satisfied with the beauty of 
the picture as delineated by the delicate lines of the 
prophet, many seek by adding other coarse lines to 
make the picture more striking. By words of their 
own, they seek to complete the meaning of the pro¬ 
phet’s words. By such abuse, the passage is made 
to read; 

“ But they shall sit every man under his own vine and fig- 
tree with none to molest or ma ke them afraid.” 

So satisfied are they with this emendation, the last 
clause, the most important of all, is commonly omitted. 

Doubtless not a few Bible readers will be surprised 
to learn that this misquotation is not the correct read¬ 
ing. The familiar phrase “ with none to molest ” 
has become so ingrained in the memory and so 
sacredly associated with the passage that it seems an 
integral part of it, and so, the sense incomplete with¬ 
out it. Possibly so strong is the feeling with many, 
that nothing short of reference to their own Bibles 
will convince them. 

Habakkuk i: 13. Thou art of purer eyes than to 
behold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: where - 


142 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


fore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherously , 
and boldest thy longue when the wicked devoureth 
the man that is more righteous than he? 

The first half of this verse is familiar to very 
many who never seriously considered it in its connec¬ 
tion, and consequently they will be surprised to 
learn that in misquoting, they have been doing vio¬ 
lence both to its words and meaning. The prophet 
uses the words evil and iniquity , as referring to the 
wicked acts of intentionly bad men. He declares 
God’s purity and urges it as a plea for the execution 
of justice. He is almost ready to expostulate with 
God in the spirit of Jeremiah, who complains; 
Wherefore doth the way of the wicked prosper? 
wherefore are all they happy that deal very treach¬ 
erously? 

Mark how the earnest cry of the prophet in the 
text, suffers at our hands. Neither Habakkuk nor 
Jeremiah would have dared so to deal with their Sa¬ 
cred Writings. By our treatment of the text, we not 
only change its purpose but its words also. Habak¬ 
kuk reasons with God for the sake of God’s honor. 
In view of'the fact of His holiness, in that His eyes 
were too pure, to look upon evil, he pleads; where¬ 
fore bokest thou upon them that deal treacherously , 
and boldest thy tongue? In the spirit of the mar¬ 
tyrs his cry is like unto their cry; How long , 0 
Lord , holy and true , dost thou not judge and avenge 
our blood on them that dwell on the earth? While 
in our use or abuse, of the text, we with the prophet 


MISQUOTED 


143 


ascribe holiness to God, yet our ascription takes the 
form of a confession, and is made the basis of a plea 
for divine mercy in our own behalf, or in the behalf 
of those for whom we pray. As misquoted the pas¬ 
sage reads; 

“We know that thou art of purer eyes than to behold 
iniquity, and canst not look upon sin with the 
least degree of allowance.’ , 

Sometimes instead of the supplied phrase, “ with 
the least degree of allowance ” the words, “ without 
abhorrence ” are substituted. This is a rare exam¬ 
ple of a variation in a misquotation. The fact of the 
correct quoting of these false sayings is quite remark¬ 
able. This misquotation is a sad degradation of the 
spirit and purpose of the prophet who in our passage, 
forgetful of self, and mindful only of the honor of 
God, pleads for a righteous display of justice and 
mercy. 

Matthew vi: 10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will 
he do?ie in earth , as it is in heaven. 

The Lord’s prayer is so remarkable for its simpli¬ 
city of language that any portion of it should be 
misquoted seems improbable. Then its sacredness 
is a safeguard against undue liberties with the text. 
Besides the common use of the prayer as repeated in 
concert, in public worship, in which the leader is 
doubly careful, is another security against possible 
changes. And so the prayer for the most part is 


144 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


correctly repeated. Yet, sometimes, you will hear 
the last clause of our verse as if it read; 

“ Thy will be done on earth, as it is done in heaven.” 

There can be no objection for the change of the 
word in for on; but the introducing of the word 
“ done ” is an offense. 

In the study of these passages, the ever returning 
question has been when and by whom did these mis¬ 
quotations originate. While in a great majority of 
instances, no satisfactory answer can be found, yet 
doubtless in many cases they have been handed down 
as heirlooms from generation to generation, not as 
misquotations, but as veritable Scripture. This 
heedless ignorance, however, cannot justify the 
abuse whether the wrong is slight as in the present 
instance, or whether it is quite serious as in many 
cases. 

Matthew xviii: 20. For where two or three are 
gathered together in my name , there am I in the 
midst of them. 

This is a universal promise, to those who meet 
for the organization and furtherance of the Church 
of Christ, of His presence and authority. It is too 
often limited to the meeting together of Christians 
for prayer, w T hen there are but a few in attendance. 
It has its place here. The pleading of the promise 
in such circumstances and its realization must drive 
away all discouragement. But as the connection in- 


MISQUOTED 


145 


dicates, it ought to be used for the strengthening of 
the hearts and hands of all those who meet as repre¬ 
sentatives and otherwise, for the discipline and up¬ 
building of the Church of Christ. The promise, how¬ 
ever, is of the broadest application and is only limit¬ 
ed by one condition, that the tioo or three are gath¬ 
ered together in His name . 

The promise of the text is so explicit that one 
would hardly expect that any attempt would ever be 
made to make it more effective, and yet it is misquo¬ 
ted as follows; 

“ For where two or three are gathered together in my 
name, there am I in the midst and that to bless.” 

But in this, as in all such cases, the tendency, of 
supplied words, is to weakness rather than strength. 
It is in the province of the interpreter to explain 
even by paraphrasing to make a passage clear; but he 
who professes to quote from the Bible should be loy¬ 
al to its text and neither add to, nor take from it a 
single word. 

Matthew xxviii:19. Go ye therefore, and teach 
all nations baptizing them in the name of the Father, 
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 

Sometimes you will hear clergymen in administer¬ 
ing the sacred rite of baptism, misquote the latter 
clause of the text by saying; 

“I baptize thee into the name of the Father, and of the 
Son, and of the Holy Ghost.” 

A good elder of a welbknown Presbyterian church, 


146 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


in giving an account of a public immersion, reported 
the Baptist brother as misusing Scripture by say¬ 
ing, “I baptize thee into the name of the Father; 
instead of I baptize thee in the name of the Father .” 
Neither was he entirely satisfied when informed that 
the Greek preposition stood for either in or “ into ” 
and that probably the “ into ” was nearer correct. 

As a marked exception, our text offers an occasion 
for justifiable misquotation. The chief reason is 
that the word “ into ” in this connection, gives a 
deeper meaning than the word in. This is certainly 
so, if the word in is limited in its meaning to the 
authority for administering the sacred rite, as it is 
too often. The word “into” carries with it the 
additional idea of dedication into communion and 
fellowship with the triune God.” As another 
authority with equal truth remarks; The word “ into” 
includes “an objective admission into the covenant 
of the Redeemer.” Feeling the need of something 
more than the word “ in ” to bring out the meaning 
of text, Mr. Barnes says; “ To be baptized in the 
name of the Father, etc, is the same as to be baptized 
unto the Father.” Alford in his N. T. for 
Eng. Readers, translates; into. Singularly enough, 
therefore, it is well to misquote our text by fol¬ 
lowing the best authorities, for the sake of the 
depth brought out by the word “ into;” or, better still 
to adopt the reading of the Revised version which 
translates; Go ye therefore and make disciples of 
all the nations, baptizing them into the name of the 
Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost. 


MISQUOTED 


14 ? 


John iii: 16. For God so loved the world, that he 
gave his only begotten Son, that whosover believetli 
in him should not perish but have everlasting life. 

It seems a shame that so grand a passage should 
ever, even in the slightest degree be marred, and that 
by the hands of friends. Unconscious abuse is still 
abuse, and our text sometimes suffers in this way. 
It was an occasion of surprise, some years ago, when 
my attention was called to the common misquotation 
of this text. By an admission of a strange w’ord in 
falsely quoting the last clause, it is made to read; 

“That whosoever believeth in him, should not perish but 
might have everlasting life.” 

There is nothing in the original to justify the use 
of the word “ might.” Besides it weakens the sense 
by introducing an element of possibility, when all is 
probability and certainty. The text is plain and 
strong when in this clause it declares; that whosoever 
believeth in him should not perish, but have ever¬ 
lasting life. 

John xvii: 3. And this is life eternal, that they 
might know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 
ichom thou hast sent. 

This text teaches the possibility of knowing God. 
And this possibility, as we learn from the verse im¬ 
mediately preceding is based upon the possession of 
eternal life. The verse reads; As thou hast given 
him power over all flesh, that he should give eternal 
life to as many as thou hast given him. The gift 
accepted, the knowledge is assured. The knowledge 


148 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


possessed implies an intimate relation with God, and 
withal, partakership of His holiness, through supreme 
love and obedience. Alford defines this knowl¬ 
edge as that living reality of knowledge and 
personal realization,—that oneness in will with 
God, and partaking of His nature, which is itself life 
eternal.” In the same connection he quotes Irenaeus 
as saying; “The beginning of life is the result of the 
participation of God: and participation of God is the 
knowing God and enjoying His goodness.” Says 
Bengal in commenting on this text; “ Knowledge in 
the matter of salvation is of the greatest moment.” 
Meyer remarks; “ This knowledge of God here de¬ 
sired ... is the zoe aionios, in that it is 
its essential subjective principle, . . . even now 

in the temporal evolution of eternal life, and still yet 
after the establishment of the kingdom, in which 
faith, hope, and love abide . . . the fundamental 

essence of which is in truth nothing else than that 
knowledge, which in the future a ion will be the 
perfected knowledge.” These citations are made to 
aid in apprehending something of the possibilities 
revealed in this passage. Possibilities open to the 
young and those comparatively ignorant as this 
world estimates ignorance. 

It is sad that this text so rich in Spiritual teaching, 
should seriously suffer by being misquoted. By 
such treatment the teaching is condensed into a 
phrase which has little in common with the text 
In fact the misquotation reverses the meaning by 


MISQUOTED 


149 


making the life eternal depend upon the knowledge, 
instead of, as the text teaches, that the knowledge 
is dependent upon and possible, on account of the 
life eternal. 

The misquotation is; 

“To know thee whom to know aright is life eternal.” 

This saying seems to have a meaning, yet as a 
quotation it is destructive to our text, and is mis¬ 
chievous in the extreme. Spiritual life must pre¬ 
cede spiritual knowledge. Read the context and 
learn that it was for these living—knowing—ones 
that Christ prayed. 

I Cor. ii: 9. But as it is written, Eye hath not 
seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the 
heart of man, the things which God hath prepared 
for them that love him. 

This text belongs to a class of passages to which, 
in quoting, words are added for the sake of complet¬ 
ing the sense. The phrase volunteered in this in¬ 
stance is “to conceive” and is added to the fourth 
clause. The text thus changed is made to read; 

“But eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither hath it 
entered into the heart of man to conceive the 
things which God hath prepared for 
them that love him.” 

Such use of the text is an evident attempt by am¬ 
plification to make the sense more emphatic. It may 
be said that these words fall so naturally into the 


150 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


sentence that they create no suspicion, and really do 
no harm. The universal law is that dilutions weaken. 
And then, the words have no place in the original, 
and so are foreign to the text. No excuse therefore, 
can justify their presence. 

In common with other texts this suffers from being 
misintrepreted as well as misquoted. (Seepp. 105,106.) 
Its words so graphically describe the possibilities of 
the unseen world, that man, after being informed to 
the contrary, ask, where is the wrong of appropria¬ 
ting them to this use? The answer is, the wrong con¬ 
sists in giving to the passage another meaning from 
that which it teaches. Besides by this act the Chris¬ 
tian Church is robbed of a text whose right meaning 
needs to be emphasized in modern Christian thought. 
That these unseen things so far as the wisdom of the 
world can discern, these things which God hath pre¬ 
pared for them that love Him, have been revealed, 
and are freely offered in the Gospel. 

But, says the objector, does not the writer know 
that this very text is a free citation from the prophet 
Isaiah, and that the Apostle appropriates the words 
rather than the sense? The writer does not know 
this, neither does anyone else. Paul may have quot¬ 
ed from some other writing. (See Meyer in loco.) 
Admitting, however, that he had the words of the 
prophet ( See Is. lxiv: 4. lii: 15.) in his mind, as an in¬ 
spired Apostle was he not justified in useing them 
as he did? “ Such minglings together of clauses 
from various parts, ” says Alford “ are not unexampled 


MIIQUOTED 


151 


with the apostle, especially when, as here, he is not 
citing as authority, but merely illustrating his argu¬ 
ment by Old Testament expressions .” 

Gal. yi: 7. Be not deceived; God is not mocked: 
for whatsoever a man soweth , that shall he also 
reap. 

The teaching here is plain and the application easy. 
Because God reigns by law in the spiritual as well as 
in the natural world, He cannot be mocked. Whatever 
men may think, God’s laws are immutable and they 
fulfil His designs. The very seeds themselves though 
sown secretly and with a covert purpose of deceiving 
will in the harvest disclose their nature. And here¬ 
in is the warning, to sow the flesh is to reap corrup¬ 
tion. The exhortation is Be not deceived, the law is 
fixed, to sow wind is to reap whirlwind. But the 
Apostle not only warns; but especially encourages the 
Galatians, under the same law, to sow good seed. He 
that soweth to the Spirit shall of the Spirit reap life 
everlasting. He further exhorts; And let us (includ¬ 
ing himself with them) not be weary in well doing; 
for in due season we shall reap, if we faint not. 

But too frequently this is not the use made of the 
text. By being misquoted, it is robbed of its mean¬ 
ing and its purpose changed. How often we hear in 
public prayer; 

“Thou canst not be deceived, neither canst thou be 
mocked.” 

By such words, the Apostle’s warning and encour- 


152 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


agement contained in this latter clause are lost sight 
of or ignored. The whole gist of the text is changed. 

The religious use made of the above saying, is ac¬ 
knowledgment that any attempt to cover up evil in 
our hearts would be futile; followed by a confession 
of sin on our part. This is well, but it is not the 
teaching of this passage. Not only so, but it de¬ 
stroys, by substitution, the right meaning and use of 
the text. 

Phil, iv: 7. And the peace of God , which pass- 
eth all understanding , shall keep your hearts and 
minds through Christ Jesus. 

This passage is sometimes quoted as a benedic¬ 
tion. At other times it is made to take the form of a 
prayer for the closing of religious services. Its use 
in either case is unjustifiable. Many who have heard 
it so quoted from their youth up will be surprised 
and ready to demand the authority for the above 
statement. To which it may be replied, the best au¬ 
thority is the passage itself. Turn therefore to it, 
and, from its immediate connection, be convinced. 

Some years ago when my attention was first called 
to the misuse of this text, I was quite as indignant as 
any one of my readers now can be. The words were 
so appropriate, and so in keeping with the sacred use 
to which they were put, that they seemed no other 
than a benediction. So true is- this that it is a matter 
of no surprise that they have been widely adopted 
and continue to be used as a formal benediction, or as 


MISQUOTED 


153 


a prayer, in the dismissal of congregations. In all 
honesty, however, the text is neither one nor the 
other. From its connection we learn that it is a 
promise that the “ unspeakable ” peace of God shall 
come to those who by prayer, supplication, and 
thanksgiving make known their wants unto God. 
The conditions fulfilled, this peace which passeth un¬ 
derstanding is realized without the interposition of a 
third person to pronounce it. 

Admitting all this, still the question may be asked, 
cannot these words be used by accommodation as 
a benediction? or at least in the form of a prayer in 
place of a benediction? In a general sense it may be 
answered; the use of Scripture by accommodation is 
not necessarily unlawful; yet in this case, and in al¬ 
most every other, is it not wrong to take the passage 
without warrant, out of its connection, and put it to a 
purpose for which it was not intended? Appropri¬ 
ated as a benediction, both pulpit and pew will ac¬ 
cept it as such, and lose sight of its true meaning. 
Then the need of this blessing coming through such 
a promise, ought to be a sufficient incentive for a 
vigorous protest against such abuse. Besides the 
Church at large cannot afford to have the Bible prac¬ 
tically robbed of so valuable a text. 

Col. ii: 21. (Touch not: taste not; handle not; 

22. Which all are to perish with the using;) 

The above in a certain sense is a Bible text, but 
being the words of man they carry with them only 


154 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


human authority. When shall we learn to discrimi¬ 
nate between that which is, and that which is not, of 
divine authority? Too much honor has been be¬ 
stowed already upon this verse under the head of 
texts misinterpreted; (See page 108) but as a familiar 
quotation the saying; 

“ Touch not, taste not, handle not,” 

deserves further notice on account of the gross 
wrong of ascribing to it divine authority. From the 
pulpit and the platform, this saying, has been freely 
used, and though in a good cause, yet most unjustifi¬ 
ably. 

Singularly enough in our times these words are re¬ 
ligiously used to influence the consciences of men to 
adopt the practice of abstinence from intoxicating 
drinks; but in the time of the Apostle Paul, the say¬ 
ing was employed by Judaizing teachers, to bind the 
consciences of Hebrew Christians to continue in the 
observance of Jewish ordinances, which Paul taught 
were done away in Christ. 

The saying itself is rather catching and impressive, 
and so far as its words are concerned there can be no 
harm in quoting it; provided, always, that care is 
used in explaining who uttered the saying, also their 
purpose in uttering it. Such explanation, however, 
would rob the precept of all its power. 

Let no friend of the righteous cause of temperance 
be troubled because of the loss of this text, Directly 
and indirectly the Bible abounds in teachings bear- 


MISQUOTED 


155 


iiig upon this subject. Besides questionable sup¬ 
ports injure rather than aid a good cause. The 
grievous offense, however, here, is the ascribing 
Scriptural authority to the utterances of mere men. 

Col. hi: 11. Where there is neither Greek nor 
Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, 

Scythian, bond nor free: bid Christ is all and in 
all . 

The latter clause of this verse suffers from a 
misinterpretation founded on a misquotation. In 
the public reading of the Scriptures, too often there is 
a lack of proper emphasis, and clearness of expres¬ 
sion. In the present case it is easy to understand 
how the ear would fail to catch the word and, leav¬ 
ing the clause to be treasured up in the memory and 
afterwards to be quoted as; 

“ But Chri3t is all in all.” 

As thus quoted it is taken out of its connection and 
applied or rather misapplied to the believer. And 
though it becomes a precious thought, yet mark the 
injustice done to the text. 

In this connection the Apostle enunciates the broad 
and fundamental principle, which is world wide in 
its application, that artificial distinctions have no 
place in the Church of Christ, that all national, ec¬ 
clesiastical and social claims are nothing. In be¬ 
coming new creatures in Christ we are lifted to a 
common level, where, as the text declares, in this re- 


156 


L AMI LIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


newed state, there is neither Greek nor Jew, Barbar¬ 
ian, Scythian, bond nor free, but Christ is all. A 
principle most contrary to the world’s judgment. 
Says Bengel in loco; “Every nation, as it prefers 
some other to itself, so again, under every pretext, 
prefers itself to all the rest, . . . Faith removes 

this distinction. ... A barbarian is not a bar¬ 
barian but Christ’s. Christ is all , and that too in all 
who believe. The new creature is in Christ, ver. 10; 
Gal. vi: 15.” 

A further misapplication of this clause, but cer¬ 
tainly not a common one, where the words are cor¬ 
rectly quoted, but misapplied, is noted in Biblical 
Notes and Queries, as follows; “To say,” says the 
writer, “ that Christ is all and in all to the believer, 
we should alike pervert the apostle’s meaning; and 
the people’s English.” He further adds; “ The 
writer remembers once hearing just this proposition 
stated as a theme of a sermon on the above text. 
But the careful professor, under whose direction the 
theme was prepared, justly took exception to it, as 
an error in interpretation, and a blunder in expres¬ 
sion.” In pointing out the correct meaning of the 
clause, the writer adds; “No matter whether we be 
Gentiles or Jews, . . . if we have put on the new 

man we are henceforth nothing, for Christ is all; we are 
henceforth equal, for Christ is alike in all” In this 
missionary age this essential unity of believers can¬ 
not be too much emphasized, and especially the rea¬ 
son for it, as set forth in our clause. Again that the 
civilized Anglo-Saxon can be lifted to a higher level 


MISQUOTED 


157 


by helping to elevate the heathen African can only 
be understood through faith in Christ. Such wis¬ 
dom is foolishness to the world. 

II Thess. hi: 1. Finally brethren, pray for us, 
that the word of the Lord, may have free course, and 
be glorified even as it is with you. 

In his first epistle, Paul commends the faith of the 
Thessalonians, and their hearty reception of the 
Gospel at his hands. Now at Corinth, and foresee¬ 
ing the opposition to his work, the Apostle writes 
this second epistle; and as in our text, asks the 
prayers of the brethren, that the Gospel might be 
glorified even as among them. 

The second clause of this passage is another ex¬ 
ample, where in quoting, a word is added to empha¬ 
size the meaning. The word supplied here is “ run,” 
and the misquotation reads: 

“ That the word of the Lord may have free course, and 
run, and be glorified.” 

Our clause as correctly translated in the Revised 
version reads; that the word of the Lord may run 
and be glorified. This corresponds with the margin 
of the Authorized version. It is somewhat remarka¬ 
ble that in the misquotation of this passage, the 
the supplied word “ run ” is the correct rendering of 
the original which means “ to run, to spread quick¬ 
ly.” So that even the right, becomes the wrong 
word, because superadded, and so without authority. 

The translation of our clause is sufficiently clear; 


158 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


but if the correct rendering of the Greek seems more 
desirable, why not adopt the reading of the margin? 
or which is better, the reading of the Eevised version? 
where the whole verse is rendered; Finally, brethren , 
pray for us; that the word of the Lord may run 
and be glorified, even as also it is with you. 

I Timothy vi: 10. For the love of money is the 
root of all evil. 

This passage is commonly quoted as if it read; 

“ Money is the root of all evil.” 

There is so much of truth in this saying that it 
passes current as veritable Scripture. Money in 
itself is good and rightly used becomes in every way 
an occasion of good. To the possessor by such use, 
it becomes a sign and seal of a liberal and generous 
character; but when abused it becomes to him a 
fruitful source of temptation and of every kind of evil. 

This, however, is not the teaching of the text. It 
is not the money but the love of it that destroys 
character both among the rich and the poor. The 
crying evils traceable to it cannot be numbered. 
And then in interpreting the text, it is wrong to 
take it out of its connection and treat it as a prover¬ 
bial saying. The theme in the Apostle’s mind, was 
Christian contentment. He was warning Timothy 
against the error of those who professed godliness for 
the sake of gain. And yet he says, but in a very 
different sense; But Godliness with contentment is 
great gain. 


MISQUOTED 


159 


Then in keeping up the connection, he. con¬ 
demns avarice in the Christian, lest it deprive 
him of temporal as well as spiritual gain that comes 
through this godliness with contentment. Hence he 
warns against the love of money that brings with it 
temptations, snares, and many hurtful lusts. For 
the love of money is the root of all evil; which while 
some coveted after they have erred from the faith 
and pierced themselves through with many sorrows. 
Therefore he solemnly exorts Timothy, and with him 
all Christians; “ Flee these things; and follow after 
righteousness, godliness, faith, love, patience, meek¬ 
ness. 

From the above it will be readily seen that this 
misquotation like many others is a text destroyer. 
It does violence to our passage by robbing it of its 
substance, and leaving naught but a dry and empty 
husk. 

II Timothy i: 12. For the which cause I also 
suffer these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: 
for I know whom I have believed, and am persuaded 
that he is able to keep that which I have committed 
unto him against that day. 

The middle clause of this verse offers a notable 
exception to the rule that supplied words detract 
from the meaning of the passage thus misquoted. 
The word supplied in this case is the preposition 
“in ” which changes the clause to; 

“ For I know in whom I have believed.” 

While the introduction of this word is unjustifiable, 


160 


FAMILIAR BIBLE TEXTS 


yet instead of detracting, it adds to the passage. In 
the words “in whom” the knowledge possessed 
seems to acquire a deeper and more spiritual mean¬ 
ing. This would be well if it were justified by the 
context. Alford remarks on this clause; “hardly to 
b e formerly expressed so strongly as De Wette, ‘in 
whom I have put my trust ,’ though the meaning, in 
the spiritual explanation is virtually the same; the 
metaphor here is that of a pledge deposited, and the 
depositor trusting the depositary; and it is best to 
keep to the figure.” 

Without spiritualizing therefore or adding to the 
text, there is a certain freshness in the Apostle’s de¬ 
claration when he says, For I know whom I have 
believed (that is him whom) and (by reason of this 
knowledge) am persuaded that he is able to keep 
that which I have committed unto him against that 
day. The Revised version 1881, recognizing this 
as the Apostle’s meaning, translates; for I know him 
whom I have believed, and I am persuaded that he is 
able to guard that which I have committed unto him 
against that day. 

It is recorded of Rev. Dr.-, for many 

years pastor of the . . . church of ... , 
when on his death bed appropriate passages of Scrip¬ 
ture were being repeated in his hearing, he was quiet 
and attentive, till this passage was quoted as if it 
read; “For I know in whom I have believed,” when 
he quietly said; “ For I knoivwhom I have believed .” 
Evidently he had given thought and study to this 
passage. 



MISQUOTED 


161 


Faithfulness to the mind of the Spirit is not more 
dependent upon correct translation, than upon right 
interpretation and correct quotation. Failure in 
either case is destructive to the meaning and under¬ 
standing of the Word. As friends of the Bible, 
therefore, we are called upon to exercise a jealous 
care in dealing with the Oracles of God as transmitted 
in the Holy Scriptures of the Old and New 
Testaments. 



Index of Texts. 


* 


The convenience of the divisions of our printed Bibles into 
chapter and verse, for the sake of easy reference, can scarcely 
be overestimated; but as to how far these divisions are responsi¬ 
ble for interrupting the sense, and for the misinterpreting and 
misquoting of individual texts, is quite another question. 


Index of Texts 


I. Mistranslations. 


Exodus vi: 2. And God spake unto Moses, and eaid 

unto him, I am the Lord . .13-15 

Leviticus xviii: 18. Neither shalt thou take a wife to 
her sister, to vex her, to uncover her nakedness, be¬ 
side the other in her life time .15-17 

Judges xv: 19. But God clave an hollow place that 
was in the jaw, and there came water thereout; and 


when he had drunk, his spirit came again, and he re¬ 
vived: wherefore he called the name thereof En- 

hakkore, which is in Lehi unto this day.17-20 

I. Samuel x: 24. And Samuel said to all the people, 

See ye him whom the Lord hath chosen, that there 
is none like him among all the people? And all 


the people shouted, and said, God save the king.20-22 

Psalm x: 4. The wicked, through the pride of his 
countenance, will not seek after God: God is not 

in all his thoughts.22-23 

Psalm xvii: 15. As for me, I will behold thy face in 
righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, 

with thy likeness.23-24 

Psalm xxiii: 4. Yea, though I walk through the valley 


of the shadow of death, I will fear no evil: for thou 
art with me; thy rod and thy staff they comfort me., .25-28 
Psalm xxxvii: 35. I have seen the wicked in great 
power, and spreading himself like a green bay tree. 

36. Yet he passed away, and, lo, he was not: yea, I 

sought him, but he could not be found.28-30 

Isaiah lv: 4. Behold, I have given him for a witness 

to the people, a leader and commander to the people... .30-33 

165 










166 


INDEX OF TEXTS 


Matthew vi: 13. And lead us not into temptation, but 
deliver us from evil: For thine is the Kingdom, and 

the power, and the glory, forever. Amen.33-36 

Matthew xxiii: 24. Ye blind guides, which strain at a 

gnat, and swallow a camel,.36-38 

John v: 39. Search the scriptures; for in them ye think 
ye have eternal life: and they are they which 

testify of me.38-40 

John xvi: 8. And when he is come, he will reprove the 

world of sin, and of righteousness, and of judgment.... 40-41 
Acts x: 1. There was a certain man in Caesarea called 
Cornelius, a centurion of the band called the Italian 

band .41-43 

Acts xvii: 23. For as I passed by, and beheld your de¬ 
votions, I found an altar with this inscription, TO 
THE UNKNOWN GOD. Whom therefore ye ig¬ 
norantly worship, him declare I unto you. 43-45 

Acts xxvi: 28. Then Agrippa said unto Paul, Almost 

thou persuadest me to be a Christian.45-47 

Romans iii: 4. God forbid: yea, let God be true, but 

every man a liar;..47-49 


Romans xii: 1. I beseech you therefore, brethren, by 
the mercies of God, that ye present your bodies a 
living sacrifice, holy, acceptable unto God, which is 


your reasonable service.50-51 

I. Corinthians iii: 9. For we are labourers together 
with God: ye are God’s husbandry, ye are God’s 

building.51-53 

I. Corinthians xiii: 13. And now abideth faith, hope, 
charity, these three; but the greatest of these is 

charity.54-57 

Hebrews iv: 8. For if Jesus had given them rest, then 
would he not afterward have spoken of another day. 

9. There remaineth therefore a rest to the people 

of God.57-59 

Hebrews x: 23. Let us hold fast the profession of our 
faith without wavering; (for he is faithful that 
promised.)..... 59-60 














INDEX OF TEXTS 


167 


Hebbews xii: 2. Looking unto Jesus the author and 

finisher of our faith.60-62 

I. John hi: 2. Beloved, now are we the sons of God, 
and it doth not yet appear what we shall be: but we 
know.that, when he shall appear, we shall be like 

him; for we shall see him as he is.63-64: 

Revelation x: 6. And sware by him that liveth for 
ever and ever, who created heaven, and the things 
that therein are, and the earth, and the things that 
therein are, and the sea, and the things which are 
therein, that there should be time no longer: 7. 

But in the days of the voice of the seventh angel, 
when he shall begin to sound, the mystery of God 
should be finished, as he hath declared to his serv¬ 
ants the prophets.....64-67 

II. Misinterpretations. 


Genesis ix: 6. Whoso sheddeth man’s blood, by man 
shall his blood be shed: for in the image of God 

made he man. 71-73 

Psalm xxxii: 8. I will instruct thee and teach thee in 
the way which thou shalt go: I will guide thee with 

mine eye.73-76 

.Psalm oxxvii: 2. It is vain for you to rise up early, 
to sit up late, to eat the bread of sorrows: for so he 

giveth his beloved sleep.76-78 

Ecclesiastes xi: 3. If the clouds be full of rain, they 
empty themselves upon the earth: and if the tree 
fall toward the south, or toward the north, in the 
place where the tree falleth, there it shall be.78-81 


Isaiah xxi: ii. The burden of Dumah. He calleth to 
me out of Seir, Watchman, what of the night? 
Watchman, what of the night? 12. The watchman 
said, The morning cometh, and also the night: if ye 

will enquire, enquire ye: return, come.81-83 

Isaiah lxiii: 1. Who is this that cometh from Edom, 
with dyed garments from Bozrah? this that is glo- 










168 


INDEX OF TEXTS 


rious in his apparel, travelling in the greatness of 
his strength? I that speak in righteousness, mighty 

to save.83-86 

Matthew v: 39. But I say unto you, That ye resist not 
evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right 

cheek, turn to him the other also.86-88 

Matthew v: 48. Be ye therefore perfect, even as your 

Father which is in heaven is perfect.88-91 

Matthew vi: 34. Take therefore no thought for the 
morrow: for the morrow shall take thought for the 
things of itself. Sufficient unto the day is the evil 

thereof.91-93 

Matthew x: 10. Nor scrip for your journey, neither 
two coats, neither shoes, nor yet staves: for the 

workman is worthy of his meat.93-94 

Matthew xii: 31. Wherefore I say unto you, All man¬ 
ner of sin and blasphemy shall be forgiven unto 
men:but the blasphemy against the Holy Ghost shall 

not be forgiven unto men.94-97 

Luke xiii: 24. Strive to enter in at the strait gate: 
for many, I say unto you, will seek to enter in, and 

shall not be able.97-99 

Luke xviii: 12. I fast twice in the week, I give tithes of 

all that I possess.99-101 

Luke xxi: 9. But when ye shall hear of wars and com¬ 
motions, be not terrified: for these things must 

first come to pass; but the end is not by and by.101-103 

Acts xxi: 15. And after those days we took up our car¬ 
riages, and went up to Jerusalem.103-105 

I. Corinthians ii: 9. But as it is written, Eye hath not 
seen, nor ear heard, neither have it entered into the 
heart of man, the things which God hath prepared 

for them that love him.105-106 

I. Corinthians iv: 4. For I know nothing by myself; 
yet am I not hereby justified: but he that judgeth 

me is the Lord.106-108 

Colossians ii : 21. (Touch not; taste not; handle not; 

22. Which all are to perish with the using;).108-110 















INDEX OF TEXTS 


169 


Titus ii: 14. Who gave himself for us, that he might 
redeem us from all iniquity, and purify unto himself 

a peculiar people, zealous of good works.110-112 

Hebrews xii: 17. For ye know bow that afterward, when 
he would have inherited the blessing, he was reject¬ 
ed: for he found no place of repentance, though 

he sought it carefully with tears.112-114 

I. John hi: 3. And every man that hath this hope in 

him purifieth himself, even as he is pure.115-116 

III. Misquotations. 

Genesis iii: 4. And the serpent said unto the woman, 

Ye shall not surely die. ... .119-120 

Leviticus xiii: 45. And the leper in whom the plague 
is, his clothes shall be rent, and his head bare, and 
he shall put a covering upon his upper lip, and 

shall cry, Unclean, unclean.120-121 

Job ii: 4. And Satan answered the Lord, and said, Skin 
for skin, yea, all that a man hath will he give for 

his life.122-123 

Job v: 7. Yet man is born unto trouble, as the sparks 

fly upward.124-125 

Job xx: 12. Though wickedness be sweet in his mouth, 

though he hide it under his tongue;. 

14. Yet his meat in his bowels is turned, it is the 

gall of asps within him.125-126 

Psalm iv: 6. There he many that say, W T ho will show 
us any good? Lord, lift thou up the light of thy 

countenance upon us.127-128 

Psalm xvii: 15. As for me, I will behold thy face in 
righteousness: I shall be satisfied, when I awake, 

with thy likeness.128-129 

Proverbs xi: 24. There is that scattereth, and yet in- 
creaseth; and there is that withholdeth more than 

is meet, but it tendeth to poverty.130-131 

Proverbs xii: 10. A righteous man regardeth the life 
of his beast: but the tender mercies of the wicked 














INDEX OF TEXTS 


170 

are cruel.131-132 

Peoveebs xiii : 24. He that spareth his rod hateth his 

son: but he that lovethhim chasteneth him betimes. 132-134 
Peoveebs xix: 17. He that hath pity upon the poor 
lendeth unto the Lobd ; and that which he hath given 

will he pay him again.134-136 

Isaiah xxxv: 8. And an highway shall be there, and 
a way, and it shall be called The way of holiness; 
the unclean shall not pass over it; but it shall he 
for those: the wayfaring men, though fools, shall 

not err therein .136-138 

Isaiah lv: 8. For my thoughts are not your thoughts, 

neither are your ways my ways, saith the Lobd .138-139 

Micah iv : 4. But they shall sit every man under his 
vine and under his fig tree; and none shall 
make them, afraid: for the mouth of the Lobd of 

hosts hath spoken it .139-141 

Habakkuk i: 13. Thou art of purer eyes than to be¬ 
hold evil, and canst not look on iniquity: where¬ 
fore lookest thou upon them that deal treacherous¬ 
ly, and holdest thy tongue when the wicked de- 
voureth the man that is more righteous than he?... .141-143 
Matthew vi: 10. Thy kingdom come. Thy will be 

done in earth, as it is in heaven.143-144 

Matthew xviii: 20. For where two or three are gath¬ 
ered together in my name, there am I in the midst 

of them.144-145 

Matthew xxviii: 19. Go ye therefore, and teach all na¬ 
tions, baptizing them in the name of the Father, 

and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.145-146 

John iii: 16. For God so loved the world, that he gave 
his only begotten Son, that whosoever believeth in 

him should not perish, but have everlasting life .147 

John xvii: 3. And this is life eternal, that they might 
know thee the only true God, and Jesus Christ, 

whom thou hast sent.147-149 

I. Cobinthians ii: 9. But as it is written, Eye hath not 
seen, nor ear heard, neither have it entered into the 












INDEX OF TEXTS 


171 


heart of man, the things which God hath prepared 

for them that love him.149-151 

Galatians vi: 7. Be not deceived; God is not 
mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall 

he also reap.151-152 

Philippians iv : 7. And the peace of God, which passeth 
all understanding, shall keep your hearts and minds 

through Christ Jesus. 152-153 

Colossians ii: 21. (Touch not; taste not; handle not: 

22. Which all are to perish with the using;).153-154 


Colossi ans in: 11. Wfiere there is neither Greek nor 
Jew, circumcision nor uncircumcision, Barbarian, 
Scythian, bond nor free: but Christ is all and in all. 155-157 
II. Thessalonians iii: 1. Finally, brethren, pray for 
us, that the word of the Lord may have free course, 


and be glorified, even as it is with you.157-158 

I. Timothy vi: 10. For the love of money is the root 

of all evil:.158-159 

II. Timothy i: 12. For the which cause I also suffer 

these things: nevertheless I am not ashamed: for I 
know whom I have believed, and am persuaded that 
he is able to keep that which I have committed unto 
him against that day.159-161 










Index of Topics, 


Lord Campbell is credited with saying; “So essential did I 
cqnsider an Index to be to every book, that I proposed to bring 
a Bill into Parliament to deprive an author who publishes a book 
without an Index of privilege of copyright: and, moreover, to 
subjett him for his offences, to a pecuniary penalty.” 


Index of Topics. 


Abuse of the Scriptures, by mis¬ 
quoting, 121, 124. * * * By 

the sacred use of misquotations, 
151,153. By ascribing Scriptural 
authority to sayings of men and 
devils, 46,155. * * 

Accommodation, the use of Scrip¬ 
ture by, the exegesis of a text lost 
sight of, 81. Not absolutely un¬ 
lawful, but very questionable, 
153. Practically robs the Bible 
of a text, 153. 

Agape, the word, not found in 
0 reek writers, 54. Special mean¬ 
ing of, 54. 

Agrippa, reply of, to Paul, 46. Sin¬ 
cerity of, questioned, 46, 47. An 
unworthy example tor those al¬ 
most persuaded, 47. 

Alexander’s, Dr. J. A., Commentary 
on the Psalms , quotea, 23. * * * 

Alford’s, Dean, Neiv Testament for 
English Readers, quoted, 34 * * * 

Anthem, an, founded on a false in¬ 
terpretation of Ps. cxxvii: 2, 77,78. 

Apocalypse, the, a book of broken 
seals, 64, 65. The encouragements 
of, for Christians in ail ages of 
the world, 65. 

Appropriation, in quoting the Bible, 
the wrong of, 150. Paul’s, of 
words rather than sense? 150. 

Associations, sacred, of Job xx: 12, 
as misquoted, 126. 

Atheism, intellectual pride, a 
source of, 22. 

Authorized version, quoted, and re¬ 
ferred to, 31. * * * 

B. 

Bagster’s Hexapla, preface of, 
quoted, 60. * 

Baliantine, Rev. Elisha, LL. D., 
quoted, 118,121. 

Band, Italian. Ambiguity of the 
phrase, 41, 42. 

Barnes, Rev. Albert, his Commen¬ 
taries , quoted, 52, * * * 

Bay tree, incorrectly translated, 29. 
Possibly a symbol of King Saul, 
29, 30. 


Be ye therefore perfect, the perfec¬ 
tion here enjoined, 89. Perfec¬ 
tionism based on misinterpreta¬ 
tion of this precept, 90. Embodies 
a law peculiar to Christianity, 91. 

Beneficence, acts of, encouraged, 
79. 

Bengel’s, Gnomon of the New Testa¬ 
ment , quoted, 35, * * * 

Bible texts, misuse of, to be gu ard- 
ed against, 76, 78. * * * 

Biblical Notes and Queries , quoted, 
156. 

Bishop’s Bible, referred to, 23, * * 

Blackstone, quoted, 73. 

Blasphemy, the sin of, what? 96. 
The warning against, addressed 
to the Pharisees. 95, 96. Not pos¬ 
sible to the humble believer, 97. 

Blessings, spiritual, not to be re¬ 
stricted to the future world, 123. 
Deep popular sentiment concern¬ 
ing, 129. 

Bloomfield’s, Greek Testament icith 
English Notes , referred to, 99, * * 

Bunyan, John, a master of the 
Scriptures in their application to 
Christian experience, 27. Yalley 
of the Shadow of Death as lo¬ 
cated by, 27. Sad experience of, 
from a wrong interpretation of 
Heb. xii: 17,112. 

Butler, Benj. quoted, 123. 

By and by, the phrase, misleading, 
102. Correct translation of, 103. 

By myself, the phrase, obsolete, 

106. What the Apostle meant by, 

107. Correctly rendered in the 
Revised version, 108. 

C. 

Calvin’s, John, Commentaries , 

quoted, 24, * * * 

Campbell, Lord, on the importance 
of an index, 174. 

Capital punishment, a Divine ordi¬ 
nance against murder, 71. Preju¬ 
dice against, 73. Blackstone, in re¬ 
gard to, 73. 

Carriages, the word, because obso¬ 
lete in sense, is confusing, 103. In- 


175 



176 


INDEX OF TOPICS 


fidel objection based on, 103, 104. 
Rendering of, correct in the Re¬ 
vised version, 105. 

Chambers, Dr. T. W., letter of, in the 
New York Observer, 132. 

Charity, the word, obsolete in 
meaning, 54. The gifts of, seem¬ 
ing uncertainty in distributing, 
79. 

Christianity levels up, 155, 156. 

Clarke, Dr., quoted, 127. 

Condits, Hist of Eng. Bible , quoted, 
32, * 

Courage, physical, also moral, 86. 

Cranraer’s, Bible, referred to, 54, * 
* * 

D. 

1 

Damnation, coarseness of the word- 
49. Displaced in the Revised ver 
sion by condemnation , 49. 

Death, Valley of the Shadoiv of. 
wrongly restricted to the hour of 
death, 25. As translated by Calvin, 
Alexander and others, 26. As lo¬ 
cated by Bunyan, 27. The mean¬ 
ing of the phrase, in its connec¬ 
tion, 28. 

Delitzsch’s, Commentary on Psalms, 
quoted, 28. 

Deprivation, a sense of, in giving up 
familiar passages, 75. * * 

Devotions, the word, in Acts xvii: 
23, conveys a wrong impression, 
44. 

De Wette, as quoted by Afoi'd, 160. 

E 

Eadie’s, Dr. John, History of the 
English Bible , quoted, 41, * * 

Edomites, the enemies of the 
Israelites, 82,84. 

Elliott’s, Horce Apocalypticee , quoted, 
66 . 

English, early, simplicity of, 48. 
Tendency of, to strong terms, 48, 
49. 

Evil, change of the word, to Evil 
One in the Revised version, 33. 
Claims for and against the, 34, 
35. The Authorized version 
probably correct, 35, 36. Resist 
not , how the precept is to be un¬ 
derstood, 86, 87, 88. 

Esau, not an example of apostacy, 
113. The selling of his birthright 
a warning, 114. 

F. 

Faith, as a grace, shall abide, the 
false teaching of popular hymns 


to the contrary, 55. The word in- 
ti’oduced by mistake in Heb. x: 
23, 59, 60. Jesus a perfect example 
of, 61. Lack of, a remedy for, 62. 
Power of, 156. 

Familiar phrases, such as mighty to 
save , 1 have trodden the winepress 
alone , lead to a misinterpretation 
of an important prophecy, 84. 

Future, the, world, magnified at the 
expense of blessings vouchsafed 
in the present world, 105, 106. 

G. 

Genevan Bible, quoted, also re¬ 
ferred to, 19, * * 

Gesenius’, Hebrew Lexicon, referred 
to, 13, * * 

Gnat, strain at a, whether the at in 
this phrase is a mistranslation, or 
a blunder of the printer? 36. Ren¬ 
dering of, by the Revised version, 
37. 

God, no authority for name of, in 
the phrase God save the khig, 20. 
This phrase, not in the Hebrew 
Bible, neither in the Septuagint 
nor Vulgate, 20. The word, first 
introduced by Coverdale and re¬ 
tained in the Revised version, 21, 
22 . 

God is not in all his thoughts, a bet¬ 
ter rendering of this phrase, in 
the Genevan Bible; also, in the 
Revised version, 23. 

God, the presence of, to be sought 
as a spiritual reality, 24. Labour¬ 
ers together with, correctness of this 
phrase, questioned, 52. Likeness 
to, a blessed assurance of, in John 
iii: 2, 63, 64. The image of, reason 
for ordinance against murder, 71. 
Words of men attributed to, 74. 
Likeness to, in dealing with our 
enemies, 89. High calling of the 
children of, 89. Exalted state of 
the children of, 115. The possi¬ 
bility of knowing, 147. 

God forbid, the phrase, not in the 
original Hebrew, 47. Unfortu¬ 
nately, retained in the Revised 
version, 48. “ Is almost profane,” 
48. No authority for ministers or 
others for using, 49. 

H. 

Hackett’s, Commentary on Acts, quo¬ 
ted, 44, * 

Heaven, glories of, magnified at the 
expense of blessings to be real¬ 
ized on earth, 105,106, * * 


INDEX OF TOPICS 


177 


Hebrew, Bible, referred to, 20, * * . 

r.enry Vlil., referred to, 21. 

Hengstenberg’s, Commentaries , quo¬ 
ted, 66, * 

Henry’s, Matthew, Commentary on 
the Holy Bible , quoted, 25. 

Hilary’s, Book de Trinatate, quoted, 
70. 

Hodge’s, Dr. Charles, Commentary 
on Romans , quoted, 48. 

Holy Ghost, blasphemy against the, 
94. Sad delusion concerning, 94. 
The Savior’s warning against, 95. 
The delusion concerning, through 
misconception of the sin against, 
96. 

Hope, as a grace, shall endure, not¬ 
withstanding the teaching of 
otherwise most excellent hymns, 
55. Is the right word in Heb. x: 
23, 59. Power of, 115. 

Horne’s, Bishop, Commentary on the 
Psalms , quoted, 25, * 

Hudibras, Butler’s, quoted, 134. 

Hymn, a popular, based upon mis¬ 
interpretation of Ps. xxxii: 8, 76. 
A very celebrated, fixes upon the 
prophecy contained in Is. xxi: 11, 
a false interpretation, 81. 

Hymns, several sacred, create a 
false impession as to the teaching 
of I Cor. xiii: 13, 55, 56. 

I. 

Idolatry, wholly given to, the 

phrase, conveys a wrong impres¬ 
sion, 44, 45. 

Inspiration, not responsible for the 
utterances of men or devils in the 
Scriptures, 46. 

International, Revised Commentary , 
quoted, 34. 

Interpretation, an important rule 
in regard to, 77. The correct, of 
Luke xiii: 24, dependent on punc¬ 
tuation, 98, 99. One of the im¬ 
portant canons of, 119. Mistaken 
view concerning the, of proph¬ 
ecy, 139. 

f re metis, as quoted by Alford, 148. 

J. 

Jaw, an unfortunate word but not 
necessarily a mistranslation, 18. 
Not the “ jawbone of an ass ” as 
many imagine, 18. As translated 
in the Latin Vulgate, Douay 
Bible; also in the Wycliffe and 
Genevan Versions, 19. The trans¬ 
lation of the word, in the Re¬ 
vised version delivers from a 
miserable error, 20. 


Jehovah, in the Authorized ver¬ 
sion, represented by the word 
Lord, 13. God’s memorial name, 
14. Regarded by the Jews as the 
ineffable name, 14. Superstition 
concerning the word, 14. Ought 
the word to be spelled Yaveh? 

14. In the Old Testament what 
Christ is in the New Testament, 

15. 

Jesus, instead of Joshua, in Heb. 
iv: 8, is misleading, 57. As the 
author of our faith in Heb. xii: 2, 
is objectionable, 61,62. Is the only 
perfect example of faith, 62. His 
example under severe provoca¬ 
tion, 88. Precepts of, not to be 
understood too literally, 88. The 
precepts of, as rules of life, are 
perfect, 89. 

Josephus, quoted, 14. 

L. 

Labourers together with God, the 

phrase, is ambiguous, 52, Is pe¬ 
culiar to the Authorized version, 
52. A favorite sermon based up¬ 
on, afterwards laid aside, 53. 

Lange’s, Dr., Commentaries , cited, 
32. * * 

Lewis, Prof, quoted, 72. 

Likeness, thy, in Ps. xvii:15, the 
meaning of the phrase, 23, 24. 

Likeness, to God, the possible real¬ 
ization of, 63, 64. Becoming par¬ 
takers of, inspires hope, 115, 129. 

Lord’s Prayer, the, sometimes 
slightly misquoted, 144. 

Love, the word, better translates 
the term a gape, than the word 
charity, 54. Meaning of, in the 
Scriptures, 54. Priority of, as a 
grace, 56. 

M. 

Marriage, with a deceased wife’s 
sister, the vexed question of, 15. 
English law concerning, 17. Dr. 
A. Roberts, quoted respecting, 
also Michaelis, 17. 

Memories, sacred, in respect to 
certain familiar texts seemingly 
violated, 46. 

Meyer’s, Commentaries on the New 
Testament , quoted, 47. * * 

Michaelis, on the Laws of Moses , 
quoted, 17. 

Mighty to save, a familiar phrase, 
which with others lead to a false 
interpretation of the prophecy 
contained in Is. lxiii, 84, 


178 


INDEX OF TOPICS 


Miracle, the greater, as set forth in 
the Douay Bible, 19. The tran¬ 
slators of the Genevan Bible in 
sympathy with this, 19. 

Misinterpretation of Is. lxiii, 83-86. 

Misquotation, the grossest form of, 
119. A grievous form of, 122. 
Possible origin of the, of Job v: 7, 
124,125. By, the sense of a pass¬ 
age destroyed, 128. A proverb by, 
is grossly perverted, 130. Of 
Prov. xiii: 24, traced back to A, 
D. 1663, 134. Example of the 
transmission of a, 134. By, the 
religious element of a proverb de¬ 
stroyed, 135. Dangerous to man¬ 
gle a text by, 138. The force and 
meaning of a text taken away by 
a, 138, 139. The words and pur¬ 
pose of a text changed by a, 112, 
143. A justifiable, a marked ex¬ 
ception, 146. 

Misquotations, handed down as 
heirlooms not as false sayings but 
as veritable Scripture, 144. The 
tendency of words superadded in, 
is to weaken the sense, 145. Are 
text destroyers. 159. 

Misquoting, violence done by, 142. 
An element of possibility intro¬ 
duced into John iii: 16, by, 147. 
The meaning and use of a passage 
destroyed by, 152. 

Money is theroot of all evil , this say¬ 
ing passes as veritable Scripture, 
158. 

Montgomery, James, quoted, 55. 

Murder, an assault upon the image 
of God in man, 71. Ordinance 
against, above human authority, 

71. Society responsible for the 
execution of the penalty against, 

72. The command in Gen. ix: 16,, 
against, is more than a Jewish 
precept. 72. 

N. 

New York Observer, quoted, 123,132. 

O. 

Olshausen’s, Biblical Commentary of 
the New Testament , referred to, 35. * 

P. 

Paul, at Athens, 43. Remarkable 
speech of, on Mar’s Hill, 43-45. 
Example of, under cruel provo¬ 
cation, 87. 

Peace, universal, promised in Mi- 
cak iv: 4,139, Not yet realized in 


its completeness, 140. What nom¬ 
inal Christian politics has done, 
and may yet do for international, 
140. This passage concerning, 
misquoted, 141. 

People, peculiar, meaning of the 
phrase, 111. Whether the charge 
in a modern sense of being a, is 
not merited by some Christians, 
111 , 112 , 

Peoples, the word, not in the Au¬ 
thorized version of the Old Tes¬ 
tament, 31. Importance of, in 
the interpretation of prophecy, 
31, 32. Obligation to the Revised 
version for correct translation 
of 31, 32. 

Perfection, the, enjoined in Matt, 
v: 48, what? 89. Tendency to the 
doctrine of Christian, 90. Sancti¬ 
fication claimed through Christ¬ 
ian, 90, 91. A law peculiar to 
Christianity, 91. 

Pierson, Dr. Bible class cf, 135, 136. 

Poligamy as prohibited by Moses. 
17. Michaelis on, 17. 

Promise, an universal, limited by 
one condition, 144,145. 

Psalm twenty-third, the misintor 
pretation of fourth verse of, gives 
character to the whole Psalm. 25, 
26. 

Punctuation, the right understand¬ 
ing of Luke xiii: 24, dependent 
upon, 98, 99. 

Q. 

Quoting, the correct, of false say¬ 
ings is something remarkable, 
143. A variation in, noted, 143. 
An example in which a right 
word in, becomes wrong because 
supei’-added, 157. The introdu¬ 
cing of a word in, seems to add, in¬ 
stead of detract from the sense. 
159, 160. 

R. 

Reasonable Service, Ambiguity of 
the phrase, 50. Instead of, sub¬ 
stitute spiritual service, 50. An 
act of worship, 51. 

Repentance, no place of, in Heb. 
xii: 17, 112. Bunyan’s experience 
in regard to 112. Rightly under¬ 
stood, the phrase, is both a warn¬ 
ing and an encouragement, 114. 

Reprove, substitute for, the word 
“convince,” or which is better 
the word convict. 40. Compare the 
Revised version, 41, 


INDEX OF TOPICS 


179 


Resist not evil, the precept, too lit¬ 
erally interpreted, 8u, 87. A per¬ 
fect example of the fulfillment 
of, 88. 

Rest, meaning of the word, in Heb. 
iv: 9, to be understood as a 
keeping of Sabbath, 58. 

Revised version of the Bible, quo¬ 
ted, 13 * * * Appendix of the, 
13. * English readers under ob¬ 
ligation to, 20, 31, 49. * * * 

Roberts, Dr. Alexander, quoted, 17. 

Robinson’s, Greek Lexicon of New 
Testament , referred to, 33. * * 

S. 

Sabbatismos, the term, used in the 
New Testament only ot eternal 
rest, 58. Noticeable use of, in 
Heb. iv : 8, 58. 

Sacrifice, living, the phrase, what 
is meant by, 51. 

Samson, the supposed fountain and 
drinking cup of, 20. 

Satan, words of, not necessarily 
true, 122. Attributed to God, an 
offense, 123 Scriptures not re¬ 
sponsible for, 123. 

Saved? are there few that be, a spec¬ 
ulative question among the Jews, 
97. The answer to the question, 98. 

Schaff, Dr. Philip, in International 
Revision Commentary , quoted, 34.* 

Scott’s Family Bible, quoted, 25. * * 

Scrip, the word, in Matt, x: 10, ob¬ 
solete in meaning, 93, 94. 

Scriptures, Search the, how to un¬ 
derstand the phrase, 38. Render¬ 
ing of the phrase, in the Revised 
version, 40. Language of the, 
marked by simplicity, 48. Ten¬ 
dency of language of the, to 
strong terms, 48, 49. Honest deal¬ 
ings w r ith the, 53. Misapplication 
of the, unjustifiable, 109, 154. 
Liberty with the, inexcusable, 128. 
Unconscious abuse of the, 147. 

Seif defense, the law of, not abro¬ 
gated, 86. 

Septuagint, quoted, 20. * * 

Sin, the unpardonable, startling re¬ 
mark concerning, 95. Misappre¬ 
hension of the teaching of Matt, 
xii: 31, concerning, 95. Not a pe¬ 
culiar species of sin, 96. Nature 
of, 96. Not possible to the Chris¬ 
tian believer, 97. 

Sister, marriage of a deceased 
wife’s, the vexed question con¬ 
cerning, 15,16. 

Sleep, the woi-d, in Ps. cxxvii: 2., 


not in figurative sense of death, 
76, 77. By misunderstanding last 
clause, the word, sadly misap¬ 
plied, 77, 78. 

Smith, Rev. Dr. Henry, reference to 

the, 53. 

Soiomon, proverbs of, in relation to 
parental discipline, misunder¬ 
stood and abused, 133. 

Stier’s, Rudolf, D. D., Words of the 
Lord Jesus , quoted, 35, * * 

Stuart, Moses, on Proverbs , quoted, 
133. 

Superstitious, too, the phrase in its 
connection, is misleading, 44. 

Swift’s, Dean, supposed “ Charity 
Sermon,” the story of, 136. 

Syriac, Peshito Version of the New 
Testament , Murdoch’s translation 
of, cited, 57, 58. 

T. 

Talmud, the Jewish, referred to, 

93. 

Teachers, Judaizing, oppose the 
teachings of Paul, 109. 

Texts, long cherished, though mis¬ 
used and abused, hard to give up, 
56, 57, * * * In quoting, words 
added, to complete the sense of, 
127, 128, * * 

Thought, the word, obsolete, in 
Matt, vi: 24,92. Right understand¬ 
ing of, 92. 

Time no longer, the phrase, is am¬ 
biguous, 65. Not to be under¬ 
stood in a literal sense, but in the 
sense of delay, 66, 67. 

Tithe, the, in this connection has no 
reference to the Old Testament 
system of, 99. The Pauline prin¬ 
ciple of Christian beneficence 
founded upon, 101. 

Total abstinence, the principle of, 
not taught by the phrase touch 
not, taste not , handle not , 108 . 
These w'ords sometimes used to 
enforce, 109. The real meaning of 
the words, 109, 110. These words 
might be used against the doc¬ 
trine of, 110. 

Tree, falling of the, in Ecc. xi: 3, 
symbolizes acts of beneficence, 
79, 80. Prof. Stuart’s exposition 
of, 80. 

Trench’s, Dr. R. C., Glossary of 
English Words, quoted, 92. 

Tuttle, Joseph F., D. D., LL. D., 

quoted, 53. 

Tyndale, William, quoted, 12. His 
Translation of the New Testa¬ 
ment, referred to, 42, * * * 


180 


INDEX OF TOPICS 


U. 

Unconscious abuse, the Bible suf¬ 
fers from, 147, * * * * 

Unity of believers cannot be too 
much emphasized, 155, 156. 

Use, sacred, of misquoted texts, 
151,152, * * * 

V. 

Verse four, in Ps. xxiii., a death-bed 
verse, 26. A popular interpretation 
of, gives character to the whole 
Psalm, 26. 

Vulgate, Latin, quoted, 13, * * * 

W. 

Watchfulness, Christian, impor¬ 
tance of, 75. 

Watts, Isaac, quoted, 56. 

Wesley, Charles, quoted, 55. 


Westcott and HorVs , Greek New Tes¬ 
tament, cited, 33. 

Word, mistranslation of a single, 
obscures an important prophecy, 
31. The meaning of a, detei min¬ 
ed by its connection, 77. 

Words, English readers of the Bible 
dependent upon the modern 
meaning of its, 42. Many, retain 
their form but are obsolete in 
sense, 101, 110. 

World, possible realization of spir¬ 
itual blessings in the present, 129. 

Wycliffe’s, Bible, quoted, 19, * * 

Y. 

Yaveh, the critical spelling of 
Jehovah, 14. 

Z. 

Zophar, the Naamathite, the words 
of, misquoted, 126. 






















































































































































































































































































































































































































* 










































































* 

































# 


< 





































































Deacidified using the Bookkeeper process. 
Neutralizing agent: Magnesium Oxide 
Treatment Date: May 2005 

PreservationTechnologies 

A WORLD LEADER IN PAPER PRESERVATION 

111 Thomson Park Drive- 
Cranberry Township, PA 16066 




A ( r 

f J ) y 











































